Election 2016: Rubio and Kasich's last stand
March 15, 2016 3:55 AM   Subscribe

The 2016 Apocalypse Presidential Election continues: Five states vote in primaries on Tuesday, March 15th. Republican candidates Ted Cruz and Donald Trump will undoubtedly gain some delegates, while the other two will likely face their last stands: Marco Rubio in Florida, and John Kasich in Ohio. Candidates are taking desperate measures, like recommending each other, to stop Trump, while violence escalates at Trump events. Meanwhile, the Democratic race has tightened between frontrunner Hillary Clinton and her opponent Bernard Sanders as they prepare to split almost 800 delegates Tuesday...

Tuesday, March 15th
- Florida (Republican and Democratic primaries)
- Illinois (Republican and Democratic primaries)
- Missouri (Republican and Democratic primaries)
- North Carolina (Republican and Democratic primaries)
- Ohio (Republican and Democratic primaries)
- Northern Mariana Islands (Republican caucus)

Tuesday, March 22nd
- Arizona (Republican and Democratic primaries)
- Utah (Republican and Democratic caucuses)
- Idaho (Democratic caucus)

Saturday, March 26th
- Alaska (Democratic caucus)
- Hawaii (Democratic caucus)
- Washington State (Democratic caucus)

There may not be any debates for a while: A Republican debate is scheduled for Monday, March 21st in Salt Lake City, but Donald Trump hasn't heard about it. He only knows what he reads on the Internet, after all. The next Democratic debate will be sometime in April.

(Please play nicely and respect the moderators.)
posted by mmoncur (4253 comments total) 45 users marked this as a favorite
 
(My first FPP! Go easy on me if it has mistakes. Thanks to Wordshore for the previous election megathread, which I shamelessly copied the formatting from.)
posted by mmoncur at 3:56 AM on March 15, 2016 [42 favorites]


Thanks mmoncur, good post!
posted by Drinky Die at 3:59 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Mod note: Hello, gentle election thread followers, your friendly moderator here! It would be great to try to keep this focused on developing news and info, and make an effort to avoid a flood of casual or repeat commenting that folks will have to wade through to try to get to any substantial coverage or analysis. Thank you!
posted by taz (staff) at 4:04 AM on March 15, 2016 [47 favorites]


North Carolina represent. Heading to the polls after work and a snack. It's been a practice for me for over a decade to walk from home to the voting booth. It clears my head. Currently this means walking a couple miles each way, and that's the short route across train tracks, a highway underpass and some parking lots.

Maybe the court-ordered re-redistricting that didn't really help much will be redrawn again between now and this summer, when the postponed state legislature elections occur, will reallocate me to one of the polling stations nearer by.
posted by ardgedee at 4:09 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


mmoncur, what a great first post! Looking forward to the rest of the thread.
posted by infini at 4:11 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


He only knows what he reads on the Internet, after all.

That's certainly something that we have in common.

From the "hasn't heard about it" link: "We've had enough debates," Trump told reporters at a news conference in Palm Beach, Florida. "I mean, how many times do you have to give the same answer to the same question?"

He actually might have a point there...
posted by sour cream at 4:15 AM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


"I mean, how many times do you have to give the same answer to the same question?"

I don't know Trump, but once you answer a question the same way twice we'll get right on figuring that out.
posted by Twain Device at 4:22 AM on March 15, 2016 [57 favorites]


Needs the "holy shit please make it stop trash fire two thousand fuckteen" hashtag.

Great post, thank you mmoncur!
posted by triggerfinger at 4:33 AM on March 15, 2016 [21 favorites]


Fivethirtyeight has Kasich at an 87% chance (as I write this) of winning Ohio. That is good (well, relatively speaking, here in this Darkest Timeline) news, because if Trump takes Ohio along with all the rest, he is pretty much unstoppable bar an unprecedented thermonuclear ratfucking at the convention. If Kasich takes it, there are still paths to Trump not making 1237 before then.

Not that any of the potential not-Trumps in play aren't anything less than terrifying, but so it goes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:44 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


"A plague o'both your houses!"

Well, IMHO, once the Bern is damped (if that comes to pass) (if the Bern pulls it off, he'll be McGovern'd mercilessly). It'll be a nose holder (for me). Not that it'll be hard to hold one's nose.

This election will have so many twists and turns it will be mind boggling. Contested GOP convention, the establishment holding on like grim death? Third party candidate due to hurt feelings, slights? Electoral College crisis due to aforementioned third party candidate and no winner in the Electoral College with a GOP House calling the election (shudder)? GOP state legislatures changing winner take all to apportioned Electoral College delegates to rig the EC vote?

What a way to run a political system, pick a president.
posted by WinstonJulia at 4:46 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Politico: Trump probably wins everything except Ohio (Kasich), Clinton probably wins everything though Illinois and Missouri have a significant chance of going to Sanders.
posted by Wordshore at 4:47 AM on March 15, 2016


@ggreenwald Glenn Greenwald, regarding Secretary Clinton's comments yesterday on Libya: You justified the bombing campaign with flamboyant displays of concern for The Libyan People: remember them?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:49 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Just voted here in Cincinnati. Poll workers reported that it wasn't too busy yet but it seemed like it was picking up when I left. There are at least a couple of down-ballot Democratic primaries with more centrist/establishment and progressive/activist Democrats running (this one will be the most interesting - whether rising star Cincinnati city councilman can beat the former Governor [who lost the Governor position to Kasich], who jumped into the race late) -- when results begin to come in, I will be looking to see if voters going for Sanders help lift the latter group towards victory.

Last night on evening news I saw several Clinton and Sanders ads, 1 or 2 Kasich ads (which still show Ben Carson in them...), 2 anti-Trump ads, and at least 2 Trump ads.

For those playing along at home, the big Ohio counties to keep an eye on tonight when returns begin coming in are the following:

Hamilton - Cincinnati
Franklin - Columbus
Cuyahoga - Cleveland
Lucas - Toledo
posted by mostly vowels at 4:51 AM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


My single, insane, and incorrect prediction:

Sanders gets more votes than Clinton in Ohio because a higher percentage of Clinton supporters cast a terrified strategic vote for Kasich in the Republican primary.
posted by kyrademon at 4:54 AM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Why would Clinton supporters vote strategic today? Most head to head polls show Clinton and Sanders beating Der Furor easily. Trump is an awful candidate for the Republicans they just can't stop him because apparently half of their base are neofascists.
posted by vuron at 4:59 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


My prediction for Ohio: Cuyahoga County goes for Bernie, because progressive voters decline to vote strategically in the Republican primary and instead take the opportunity to vote against prosecutor Tim McGinty, who declined to indict the police officers that shot Tamir Rice.
posted by box at 5:02 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't know a single Democrat in Ohio planning to vote strategically in the GOP primary. Not saying it won't happen but I really don't see that being A Thing.
posted by mostly vowels at 5:08 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ben Carson: Even if Trump's a bad president, it'll only be 4 years

With endorsements like these, who needs enemies?
posted by mmoncur at 5:09 AM on March 15, 2016 [55 favorites]


> "Why would Clinton supporters vote strategic today?"

I said that because --

1) I might vote for Kasich, if I lived in Ohio, since I'm pretty mellow about whether Sanders or Clinton gets the Democratic nomination but the ever-increasing brownshirt-style violence of "Trumpism" is scaring the &*&%*! out of me, and

2) I completely without justification assume that many other voters are Just Like Me, except that

3) Although I actually voted for Sanders, I suspect that my mellowness about whether Sanders or Clinton gets the nomination is somewhat more common among Clinton supporters than Sanders supporters, based on no objective evidence and going entirely by the nonrandom and biased sampling of what people seem to be saying on Metafilter, besides which

4) I said it was an insane and inaccurate prediction, so it's not like I'm standing firmly behind this and shouting it as truth from the rooftops.
posted by kyrademon at 5:10 AM on March 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


It's early morning, but a few things are abundantly clear. Trump will get the lion's share of delegates and is all but guaranteed the GOP nomination. There's not going to be any brokered convention or the like; Trump is it. Rubio will likely lose even his home state of Florida and finally drop out. Cruz will hold on for a while longer, but not for much.

I'm a Sanders supporter, and I think he'll have a good day. I hope so, anyway! If he takes Ohio that will be YUGE, and his momentum will keep on keepin on. Probably pretty evenly split, which is ultimately good news for Hillary, because Bernie needs some big wins.
posted by zardoz at 5:12 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


You do realize that Kasich is really unpopular among Ohio Democrats right? Between his attacks on unions, planned parenthood, expansion of fracking and cutting funds to cities, most Ohio Democrats loathe Kasich, and shake our heads at how he's been able to push a moderate image because of how insane this election year has become.
posted by mostly vowels at 5:13 AM on March 15, 2016 [43 favorites]


My prediction: Missouri goes to Sanders by a nose, Ohio by a bit more and Illinois by good bit. Clinton takes NC, but not by as much as one might expect, and Florida by a lot. We go into the next round of elections with Sanders just slightly closer to Clinton than before. Upcoming state primaries continue the pattern, and in the end it's basically a tie and they'll have to settle it with a brawl between Clinton's donors and Sanders' donors.

That last part might just be a fantasy.
posted by Foosnark at 5:16 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


"You voting for Hillary today?"
"Heck no, you can't trust her. I'm between Bernie & Kasich"
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:22 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


they'll have to settle it with a brawl between Clinton's donors and Sanders' donors.

Nerdfight!

I'm agnostic enough between Sanders and Clinton that I am honestly not sure I will bother to vote (and by the time this state votes, it will probably be decided anyway). They are both ok in some ways and flawed in others, but I could live with either.

But the GOP side is the most compelling political theater in my lifetime and I can't figure out what they are going to do. They have a set of genuinely terrible candidates (though each for a different reason) and half the party seems to be hoping for a reincarnation of Reagan to walk in and solve everything. Maybe Romney thought he would take that role, but he was more like a stage jumper whom the crowd decides not to catch, and the thud when he hit was painful to witness.

My hope on that side is that the results continue to stay mixed so that Trump doesn't pass the mark for a long time, giving more time for the party elders to figure out a non-brownshirt option of some sort.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:25 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Why I Have Not Endorsed Any Candidate, by Samira Rice (mother of Tamir): My experience has let me know that the system is working just the way the people in power want it to. I cannot settle for partial solutions and lip service.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:26 AM on March 15, 2016 [21 favorites]


Sanders gets more votes than Clinton in Ohio because a higher percentage of Clinton supporters cast a terrified strategic vote for Kasich in the Republican primary.

Or, as I like to call it, "Tuesday morning."

What a freakin' weird year.
posted by MrGuilt at 5:29 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hillary’s emails reveal lucrative ties to for-profit colleges
It was recently revealed through Hillary’s emails that during her first year as Secretary of State she insisted that Laureate Education be included in the guest list for an education policy dinner hosted at the U.S. Department of State.

“It’s a for-profit model that should be represented,” she wrote in the August 2009 email, and as a result, a senior vice president at Laureate was added to the guest list. Several months later, former President Bill Clinton became an honorary chancellor of Laureate International Universities, which turned out to be incredibly lucrative. He was paid a cool $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 for his role with the for-profit college.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:30 AM on March 15, 2016 [48 favorites]


Beware the Ides of March.
posted by Sphinx at 5:37 AM on March 15, 2016 [24 favorites]


Ben Carson: Even if Trump's a bad president, it'll only be 4 years

What an odd thing to say!
And what does this say about his opinion regarding Obama?
I mean, Obama is a two-term president, so if Ben Carson thinks that all the bad presidents only serve one term and then fail to be reelected, then the only logical concl ... Oh. Right. Sorry. I'll see myself to the door now.
posted by sour cream at 5:41 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


My impressions for here in FL 18th District:

I was at a fundraiser Friday for Jonathan Chane and Mary Higgins. Chane is running as a Dem facing Randy Perkins in the August D primary to replace Patrick Murphy, who is the DNC and establishment pick to get the D nod for Rubio's seat.

Based on my unscientific polling here, it's Trump by a lot. The Rubio campaign is conspicuously absent in Martin County, one of the most reliably Republican counties in FL. On the Dem side, based on attendance at the fundraiser, it's a dead heat, much closer than the polls suggest. That may be skewed as this was an event for Chane. Perkins fits the Clinton mold more closely - a one time Republican who changed his registration to Dem to run for this open seat, lots of money of his own and from the DNC, Big Sugar, etc., and typical "Third way" Republican-lite policies. The August down-ticket primary will be interesting.

(I was a long time supporter of Murphy - another R who became a D to run - but after his vote in favor of intervention in Syria, that was it for this R in D's clothing. I's supporting Alan Grayson.)
posted by sudogeek at 5:48 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Beware the Ides of March.

I was in the shower this morning, contemplating the strangeness/irony/appropriateness/whatever of participating in the Democratic process on the Ides of March, when a house centipede skittered along the wall near the ceiling, got near the showerhead, and fell off the wall and slid down the drain. I have no idea what that would portend (aside from a clumsy/suicidal arthropod) but I had a good, bitter laugh over it.

What a freakin' weird year.

Yeah.
posted by Foosnark at 5:51 AM on March 15, 2016 [23 favorites]


You do realize that Kasich is really unpopular among Ohio Democrats right?

Kasich's fav / unfav among Ohio Democrats is 30/58. Even among voters who describe themselves as "very liberal" he gets 30/61. Those are pretty great numbers for a GOP governor! (Compare: Scott Walker gets 38/57 in Wisconsin among all voters, both Democrats and Republicans!) General election polls in Ohio show Democrats winning against any GOP candidate except Kasich, who wallops both Clinton and Sanders.

I don't think there's a clear path for Kasich to the nomination, and I don't actually think he's a particularly moderate Republican, but if you want a guy who can draw some support from the other party and who can win a swing state, I think he's got a pretty good claim that it's him.
posted by escabeche at 5:51 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


This picture almost makes me feel sad for Marco*.

* - So long as the use of 'almost' here is the same as in 'i almost made the LFC first team after a great performance in a pick-up game against five year olds.'
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm curious to see what the Republican Party does after this election. The years of courting the fringe and Tea Party elements has lost them control of their own party, so they need to either embrace the madness or change the rules of the system to take back control. If it's the former I suspect the more moderate elements will defect to the Democrats, while in the latter situation the lunatics will splinter to form their own authoritarian party.

Either way it's good news for the Democrats, but not so much for the progressives. The Democratic Party will necessarily lean further right, win handily for a while, and within 8-12 years we could see the same situation repeated on the left. We could be looking at the birth of a three party system in the States.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:54 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I was number 48, voting in a semi-gentrified area of south St. Louis, MO. I see lots of Bernie signs, and some hillary stickers. (including a Hillary sticker on the same car with a sticker for the Jesus-y, generally rightwing radio station; go figure)
posted by notsnot at 5:54 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thanks for the tip on Sittenfeld, mostly vowels. Somehow I missed him, although in a general I'd certainly take Strickland over Portman.

Total anecdata; here in Cleveland I know a couple of people who already have crossed over to make a strategic vote for Kasich, and several more who are at least seriously considering it. So it's kind of a Thing, I just doubt that it's enough of a Thing to really make a difference. (I could see, maybe, early returns showing a close enough race causing late voters to more strongly consider a strategic vote, but I don't know how we'd actually get evidence that that happened.)
posted by soundguy99 at 5:58 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Based on my single bit of anecdotal evidence, Kasich doesn't have a chance. My mom mentioned Sunday that "some republican" running for "something" was having a rally in the community centre of my home Chicago suburb, two blocks from my childhood home, but she had no idea that it was Kasich.

It took me 10 minutes to establish this was someone running for President, and not Village Treasurer, and my mom is pretty switched on about the news cycle and politics. Taking the country by storm he isn't.
posted by C.A.S. at 6:03 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


My prediction: nobody has a clue what's going to happen today.
posted by localhuman at 6:06 AM on March 15, 2016 [42 favorites]


Pondering the strategic Kasich vote: if it became apparent that there was a significant number of folks who crossed the aisle to vote Kasich/against Trump (i.e. "wow, Kasich's winning margin is surprisingly similar to the variance between the Dem's participation in this primary vs. 2008 (the prior open primary"), I'm sure Trump and his supporters would cry foul. Would there be any recourse?

Personally, everything is in the rules, and, at the end of the day, I will choose between two candidates in November. It's not unreasonable for me to want input into who they may be.
posted by MrGuilt at 6:08 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


> "I'm sure Trump and his supporters would cry foul. Would there be any recourse?"

Well, first, given how many conservative Democrats Trump is known to have picked up in open primaries thus far, that would be pretty hypocritical. So, yeah, it would probably happen.

However, whether they cry foul or not, there is no recourse. How do you prove whether a vote by a registered Democrat for Kasich is a strategic vote against Trump or a sincere belief that Kasich is nifty? Even if you could prove it, what would it matter? It's a free country and an open primary, you can vote for whoever you want for whatever reason you want.

States that want to avoid this kind of thing have closed primaries. Ohio doesn't.
posted by kyrademon at 6:19 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I was unable to vote in Ohio this morning because my change of address form apparently did not work. I'm pretty angry.

My boyfriend is considering biting his tongue and voting for Kasich for the downstream effects in the Republican convention. I could not bring myself to do that because Kasich is such an anti-women, anti-labor candidate, but I appreciate the sacrifice.

I'm in Columbus, and I'm just glad the Republican convention will be in Cleveland, not here!
posted by ChuraChura at 6:19 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Duval counties computers had a county wide glitch and went down, so according to the news all precincts went to paper ballots. This was around 8 am, so barely an hour after the polls opened. The Supervisor of Elections went on breaking news to clarify that it was a problem with the electronic check in, so voters were/are being checked in by hand and then I believe they're using the scantron ballots.

It's going to be a long long day here in Florida.
posted by hollygoheavy at 6:22 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


That hypothetical Ohio Democrat who's cool with either Bernie or Hillary, knows full well that Kasich isn't actually moderate, but still wants to vote against budding fascism? Yeah, I can see it.
posted by whuppy at 6:27 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Either way it's good news for the Democrats, but not so much for the progressives. The Democratic Party will necessarily lean further right, win handily for a while, and within 8-12 years we could see the same situation repeated on the left. We could be looking at the birth of a three party system in the States.

I've been thinking this same thing for a while as well. If all you care about is "My party will win!" this is indeed great news for the Democrats, but probably terrible news for anyone who espouses anything resembling progressive values. I guess it just means we will slide down the pole a little more slowly than otherwise, but doesn't give me much hope.
posted by briank at 6:28 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Early voted here in Cincinnati last Saturday because my son was home from college and he didn't think to get an absentee ballot in time. It was his first time voting so we all went downtown together to the Board of Elections. I got a little teary because voting is super important to me, and I used to take him and his sister with me to vote when they were little and taking them out of school wasn't a big deal. They'd go into the booth with me and we'd discuss why voting was important, and my belief that if you don't vote you don't have the right to bitch about government (unless, of course, your vote was taken from you or you were disenfranchised). They'd get stickers, too, and it was fun.

So yeah. My kid participated in his very first election, exercising his right to vote. It's a big deal.
posted by cooker girl at 6:34 AM on March 15, 2016 [48 favorites]






Kenneth P. Vogel, Ben Schreckinger and Hadas Gold: Trump campaign manager's behavior prompted staff concerns
The Republican presidential frontrunner is standing by his 42-year-old campaign manager, and both men have disputed the reporter’s account. Lewandowski, responding to emailed questions, characterized his relationship with reporters who cover the campaign as “excellent” and said his temperament is not an obstacle to doing his job.

But a POLITICO investigation reveals that the incident was far from the first time in Lewandowski’s political career ― or even during the 2016 campaign ― that the intense, Red Bull-chugging operative has been accused of bullying and other inappropriate behavior.

In interviews with more than 20 sources who have dealt with Lewandowski during his nearly year-long tenure with the Trump campaign and in his previous job with the Koch brothers-backed advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, complaints emerged about Lewandowski being rough with reporters and sexually suggestive with female journalists, while profanely berating conservative officials and co-workers he deemed to be challenging his authority.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:41 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Predicting tomorrow's NY Post headline: Goodbye Rubio Tuesday.
posted by The Bellman at 6:42 AM on March 15, 2016 [57 favorites]


Goodbye Rubio Tuesday.

Not really gonna miss you.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:44 AM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


I was unable to vote in Ohio this morning because my change of address form apparently did not work. I'm pretty angry.

Ask to cast a provisional ballot. Also, contact this voting watchdog group (1 866 OUR Vote). A friend in MA was unable to vote in her primary, and the Our Vote people were able to help her out, pointing her to the actual law about "postmarked by" (vs. received by) that the local clerks had misinterpreted.
posted by anastasiav at 6:49 AM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


Beware the Ides of March.
posted by Sphinx at 8:37 AM on March 15 [4 favorites +] [!]


Which appropriately enough, Ides of March is movie about politics that partially takes place in and filmed in Ohio.
posted by mmascolino at 6:50 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's been sort of fascinating in a grim way watching Salon twist itself in knots trying to be a Democratic media outlet for two election cycles now, (separated by 2012) while presenting a pretty partisan picture of the Dem field. They clearly loathe Hillary and would like to see Sanders elected. During the 2008 election their coverage was dotted with a few positive / sympathetic pieces, but this cycle their coverage has been deeply negative regarding the Clinton campaign.

If Clinton does get the nomination, it should be interesting to see if they switch streams or abandon their principles to get Trump elected.
posted by zarq at 6:50 AM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Salon has been absolutely ripping Trump for months, so I don't see that happening.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:57 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump was in Greater Cincinnati this weekend which caused a couple interesting developments:

His rally was supposed to be in downtown Cincinnati but due to what they called safety concerns they moved it to the reliably Republican suburb of West Chester.

The Hamilton County sheriff Jim Neil, a Democrat who is running unopposed in the primary, is facing a backlash because he was sitting on the dais, smiling and cheering behind Trump, during the rally: Neil: Attending Trump rally was 'selfish'.

Trump tweeted that Pete Rose has endorsed him, and said Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. Rose's lawyer has denied any endorsement.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:57 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


From the Monkey Cage Blog today, an article (WaPo) detailing how skillfully Trump has wielded the politics of resentment, how that's helping him in the rust belt --and how pundits who equate Trump and Sanders' screeds against the system are missing the point.
posted by duffell at 6:57 AM on March 15, 2016


TPM: Someone Will Die
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:00 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'd be surprised if there was much crossover among Ohio Democrats. He's not, like, wildly unpopular, but it's not like Dems think he's benign. He's got a pretty bad reputation, tempered only by the realization that it could be much worse.

On the other hand, he's very popular among Republicans here, so he should probably win comfortably. There's no real reason for Democrats to vote strategically.

But I'm a Republican who switched parties to vote for Bernie, so what do I know?
posted by kevinbelt at 7:01 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Salon has been absolutely ripping Trump for months, so I don't see that happening.

The question in my mind is not whether they'll endorse Trump outright. They won't. But every article attacking her during the national campaign once the primaries are over will be more fodder for moderates who might have voted for her to say, "Screw them both, I'll stay home on Election Day."
posted by zarq at 7:06 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


But I'm a Republican who switched parties to vote for Bernie, so what do I know?
posted by kevinbelt


So what you're saying is, Bernie has strong backing in the Kevin Belt.
posted by duffell at 7:06 AM on March 15, 2016 [56 favorites]


Trump tweeted that Pete Rose has endorsed him, and said Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.

I lived several years on Cincinnati's west side which is where Rose is from, and the attitude that Rose should be in the HOF is an article of faith in much of Cincinnati, but especially on the west side. I also expect Trump to pick up those precincts by a land slide, and this will just cement it even more.
posted by mostly vowels at 7:08 AM on March 15, 2016


The question in my mind is not whether they'll endorse Trump outright. They won't. But every article attacking her during the national campaign once the primaries are over will be more fodder for moderates who might have voted for her to say, "Screw them both, I'll stay home on Election Day."

If Salon making note of true, problematic things that Clinton has said and done can cause potential supporters to sit the election out, she's as weak a candidate as many fear.
posted by threeants at 7:10 AM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


hope that things get so bad for minorities and poor people that they finally see the light and vote for who white, liberal leftists want them to

Tell that to the Arabs in Dearborn who voted against Sec. Clinton's bomb-first Middle East policies. Tell it to my white, black and brown friends and neighbors and coworkers and local elected officials, many of whom are deeply involved in anti-racist and anti-poverty work and who, if my facebook feed is any indication, are overwhelmingly supporting Sen. Sanders.

We actually don't take our marching orders from Salon, thanks.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:12 AM on March 15, 2016 [30 favorites]


If Salon making note of true, problematic things that Clinton has said and done can cause potential supporters to sit the election out, she's as weak a candidate as many fear.

I don't think she is, personally. But if she takes the nomination, that shouldn't matter. No matter who the Democratic candidate is, once the conventions are over the only goal Democrats should have is to stop Trump from taking the Presidency.

Idealism is a wonderful thing. But principles mean jack shit if we allow tragedies to happen by inaction. And a Trump Presidency would be a tragedy. He's a petty, egomaniacal, thin-skinned, impulsive, immature racist moron that no one with an ounce of sanity would let anywhere near this country's military or nuclear arsenal. Or control over women's and minority rights.
posted by zarq at 7:14 AM on March 15, 2016 [58 favorites]


I kind of doubt that Salon has much pull these days (if it ever did).

I'm Canadian, and don't think much of Hillary, but I can't imagine how any lefty/progressive type could look at a Clinton/Trump matchup and think "Meh, they're basically the same, I'm not gonna bother voting."
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:18 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Florida voter here. I usually do early or absentee voting, but I forgot to do that this time. In related news, I also found out that my employer gives an hour of paid leave to go vote (!!!), so I went ahead and voted this morning on my way in.

The polls were pretty quiet, which is what I was hoping for, but I have no idea what the turnout will be like. It was relatively steady though, with a short line because of an issue with someone's ID (insert-rant-about-voter-ID-laws-here), but on the whole, things went pretty smoothly.

I'm in the capital, which means my county is reliably-liberal, but the surrounding counties are pretty deeply conservative--the exact demographic that seems to be capturing Trump's attention.

I figure my county will probably go for Bernie, and the rest, well, we'll see.
posted by PearlRose at 7:18 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I just want this primary season to be over so that I can put a bumper sticker on my car for whichever Democrat wins the nomination. Maybe I should just put both Hillary and Bernie stickers on my car now and peel off the loser in a few months.
posted by octothorpe at 7:19 AM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


>I'm agnostic enough between Sanders and Clinton that I am honestly not sure I will bother to vote

Can you do me a huge favour and go and give that vote to Sanders? If it's all the same to you it really isn't to me, and you'd make this internet stranger very happy.
posted by Dragonness at 7:20 AM on March 15, 2016 [40 favorites]


Expecting the media to black out any criticism of Clinton’s actions and words is deeply disrespectful to the memories of the children and adults in Iraq who were killed by the force she authorized; the Americans whose deaths from AIDS she verbally erased the other day; the students saddled with crushing loans whose for-profit debtors she and her husband took money from and gave patronage to; etc.
posted by threeants at 7:21 AM on March 15, 2016 [19 favorites]


I was unable to vote in Ohio this morning because my change of address form apparently did not work. I'm pretty angry.

Depending on which part of the process the "wrong address" screwed up, you very well might be able to go back and force the issue if you have a utility bill in your name with your current address on it. Or you should at least be able to get a provisional ballot.

Ohio FAQ about voter ID

Ohio FAQ about provisional ballots
posted by soundguy99 at 7:21 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm Canadian, and don't think much of Hillary, but I can't imagine how any lefty/progressive type could look at a Clinton/Trump matchup and think "Meh, they're basically the same, I'm not gonna bother voting."

That's not the issue. The issues are voter fatigue, not wanting to bother voting for the lesser of two evils, etc.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 AM on March 15, 2016


Ohio voter here. I strongly considered the strategic vote for Kasich, but ended up going for the idealistic vote for Sanders at the last minute.
posted by slogger at 7:22 AM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


Well, my facebook feed is a pretty good cross-representation of political actors (alderpersons, representatives, neighborhood association staffers, progressive clergy, non-profit workers, activists) in my neighborhood. These are people in the trenches, not berniebro slacktivists.

I agree, it's not anything like a scientific poll. I never said it was. My point is that there are plenty of politically-active people of color and white allies who are supporting Sen. Sanders and the insinuation that we don't exist is pretty offensive.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:24 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


mmoncur: Ben Carson: Even if Trump's a bad president, it'll only be 4 years

Rather a different from the soundclip from NPR's coverage of Carson backing Trump:
"There's two different Donald Trumps," Carson continued. "There's the one you see on the stage, and the one who's very cerebral, sits there, and considers things very carefully. You can have a very good conversation with him. And that's the Donald Trump that you're going to start seeing more and more of right now."
Unspoken: The racist bigot was just his devil's mask, used to ramp up fear and hysteria. Now he'll become human again, concerned for the well-being of all Americans, as will be his job if he is president.


localhuman: My prediction: nobody has a clue what's going to happen today.

I know, I know! I'll putz around on MetaFilter for too long, get some work done, have some lunch, back to MetaFilter and more work, then head home. Success!
posted by filthy light thief at 7:27 AM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


If you live in Florida, please vote. Because my brother in law will be voting. And... well, please just vote. At least two of you.
posted by Naberius at 7:27 AM on March 15, 2016 [47 favorites]


I don't know a single Democrat in Ohio planning to vote strategically in the GOP primary. Not saying it won't happen but I really don't see that being A Thing.

Yeah, no way. Even though I would vote for any Dem for president over these Republican crazies, there was no way I was going to turn up the chance to vote against Ted Strickland. I think getting some decent gun control legislation through is one of the most important issues in our current political cycle, and Strickland's views on this are . . . scary.
posted by chainsofreedom at 7:27 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I can't imagine how any lefty/progressive type could look at a Clinton/Trump matchup and think "Meh, they're basically the same, I'm not gonna bother voting."

I have an acquaintance who feels this way. She prides herself on being extremely progressive and believes that, if Sanders doesn't win the nomination, a Trump election would bring about a leftist revolution. She also feels morally okay with voting for Trump because, since he's never held office, she can say that she's not voting for someone who's voted for a policy position she disagrees with. I don't agree with any of that logic but there it is.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:28 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, I voted at 7 am this morning because I knew I wouldn't have the energy after work. The poll workers said that it had been steady for the past half hour, although not mobbed. Also also, why do all church basements smell the same?
posted by chainsofreedom at 7:29 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Urn coffee, hot dish and mildew?
posted by ian1977 at 7:31 AM on March 15, 2016 [24 favorites]


There's no real reason for Democrats to vote strategically.

Long shot that the Republican convention could be contested, i.e. Trump doesn't start with enough delegates to win on the first vote, and if he doesn't then for each vote after more and more delegates are free-range. Kasich taking Ohio is a cornerstone of this, so if any Ohio Dems want to increase the chance of Trump losing the nomination, a vote for Kasich does have some strategic value.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:31 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sam Wang has the probability of Clinton v. Trump at higher than 80%. It'll go up after today, I suspect.
posted by persona au gratin at 7:32 AM on March 15, 2016


Plenty of us Michigan D voters did not pull an R ballot to vote strategically, and were pleasantly surprised with the results.
posted by klarck at 7:33 AM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


Sam Wang has the probability of Clinton v. Trump at higher than 80%.

I don't know who Sam Wang is, but at this point, the race is so unpredictable, I would not be surprised if neither Clinton or Trump were the nominees.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:34 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Gore and Bush. Both the same." While at the same time thinking that Bush might bring about a socialist revolution.

The Revolution isn't coming, people. Change happens slowly here, and it's always the result of hard work and smart voting.
posted by persona au gratin at 7:34 AM on March 15, 2016 [39 favorites]


Wang is the dude at Princeton who's better than Silver at forecasting.
posted by persona au gratin at 7:35 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Missouri voter! I have strategically voted in the past, such as McCain in the 2000 primary. I strongly considered it this time around, but then I looked at the Republican ballot. I couldn't even consider giving my vote to one of those assholes, even in the name of Stop Trump.
posted by aabbbiee at 7:35 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Yeah, "hope for the racist authoritarian monster so it'll inspire leftist revolution" is the most idiotic form of slacktivism I have ever encountered.
posted by duffell at 7:37 AM on March 15, 2016 [75 favorites]


Another Ohio voter, who considered a strategic vote for Kasich, despite the large number of pro- Planned Parenthood rallies I've gone to, and full knowledge of the type of supreme court justice he would nominate. I went Dem instead, mostly for the down ballot races.
posted by damayanti at 7:37 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Any real chance of a Clinton-Sanders ticket?
posted by zakur at 7:38 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Seriously, don't you just get Cruz if you stop Trump? I'd rather have Trump. If Trump is Warren Ellis' "Beast", then Cruz is "The Smiler".
posted by selfnoise at 7:38 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


i'm so annoyed with the tiny dishonesties of this election season. for instance, that salon article? - Sorry, Hillary, but we’re done: Keep repeating racist myths and praising Kissinger and the Reagans. I’m switching to Bernie Sanders - that sounds like someone who just made up their mind, no? like they had switched sides? weird then that last month that very same author wrote Hillary Clinton’s self-satisfied privilege: Her Goldman Sachs problem helps explain the popularity of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (and poking around at some of his work elsewhere shows him to have been pretty anti-hillary for at least a while).
posted by nadawi at 7:39 AM on March 15, 2016 [29 favorites]


> "Yeah, 'hope for the racist authoritarian monster so it'll inspire leftist revolution' is the most idiotic form of slacktivism I have ever encountered."

Baldrick: No, wait. We do nothing ... until our heads have actually been cut off.
Blackadder: And then we ... spring into action?
posted by kyrademon at 7:40 AM on March 15, 2016 [41 favorites]


Rather a different from the soundclip from NPR's coverage of Carson backing Trump

NPR giving Republicans the benefit of mushy, they-aren't-really-that-extreme coverage? You don't say.

But they buried the lede: conservative favorite Carson admitted the primary battles are just a dog-and-pony show and none of them really mean any of it (this is at the end of the story, mind):
Both men attempted to move past that history during the Friday morning press conference.

"The one person that just kept sneaking up on me - I couldn't lose him - was Dr. Ben Carson. ...And so I started going after Ben" said Trump, bluntly acknowledging the political calculations that go into political attacks. "It's politics. Ben understands that. And I was really impressed by the way he fought back. Because he fought back with silence and strength."

"We buried the hatchet," said Carson. "That was political stuff. And that happens in American politics."
Count me among the Democratic voters (I used to be willing to vote Republican before the latter became a lockstep parliamentary party and a vote for, say, Dick Lugar became tantamount to a vote for Jeff Sessions, Joni Ernst or Ted Cruz) who will vote for either Hillary or Bernie in the general.
posted by Gelatin at 7:40 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Any real chance of a Clinton-Sanders ticket?

No, Bernie Sanders would not run with her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:41 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]




Wang is super good and I'm glad that he's showing up because 538 has been pretty light on content and somewhat heavy on punditry recently.

Personally I suspect the following:

Republicans-
Trump wins everything but Ohio and continues his death march to the nomination
Rubio does awful in Florida and drops out tomorrow
Kasich wins Ohio but too little too late maybe it will be enough to get a contested convention but it seems unlikely because I don't see Cruz and Kasich winning many more states.

Trump gains more of a delegate lead butmaybe falls behind the 100% pace that he needs.

Democrats-
Clinton wins Florida and NC by convincing margins.
Sanders wins Missouri by 3 points
Clinton and Sanders effectively split Illinois and Ohio with Clinton probably winning Illinois and Sanders maybe pulling the upset in Ohio.

Sanders wins some battles but continues to lose the war as Clinton pads her lead by a decent number of net delegates. I suspect her lead will be at least 250 by the end of the day.
posted by vuron at 7:42 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


For all the noise and bluster and "narrative," this primary has been extremely predictable. It's just that some people are in denial.

I mean, there's no need for you to be rude about it. But Michigan last week was extremely unpredictable, and I find it unpredictable and horrifying that Trump is still the frontrunner when he is probably going to get someone killed, very soon.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Expecting the media to black out any criticism of Clinton’s actions and words is deeply disrespectful to the memories of the children and adults in Iraq who were killed by the force she authorized; the Americans whose deaths from AIDS she verbally erased the other day; the students saddled with crushing loans whose for-profit debtors she and her husband took money from and gave patronage to; etc.

This has all been reported on at length for the last few months, and at least in response to her Iraq vote and the AIDS disaster, she has also responded at length. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging and reporting what has happened and holding her accountable. But at some point Americans are going to have to vote for one candidate or the other, and if she becomes the candidate we owe it to ourselves to not shoot ourselves in the face over who sits behind the Resolute desk for the next 4 years.

We also have a responsibility towards those whose rights will surely be stripped away and to those whose lives will be screwed over in other ways if Trump takes the Presidency.
posted by zarq at 7:42 AM on March 15, 2016 [20 favorites]


Any real chance of a Clinton-Sanders ticket?

No, for the same reason the idea of a Obama-Clinton ticket was a non-starter. The VP slot is almost insulting.

Sanders on a Clinton cabinet is a different matter, but the places he'd arguably be most effective are currently positions with little regard (Interior, HHS, Labor) and I see no evidence that he'd be effective at State or Defense, but...

...hmm. Treasury is interesting. Put the man in the exact department tasked with the economy -- and tasked with regulating the markets. Sanders as SecTres means he can go after Wall Street big time.

Except I doubt that Clinton would do that, because, well, one of the reasons there are Sanders supporters is Clinton's ties to Wall Street. But if you wanted to send a clear message that those ties don't mean anything, announcing Sanders as SecTreas during the general election campaign would be a big way to do just that.
posted by eriko at 7:44 AM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


> "Seriously, don't you just get Cruz if you stop Trump?"

Well ... no, not necessarily. "Stopping Trump" at this point means "the Republicans have a contested convention", not "Cruz wins" -- Cruz winning outright would be almost impossible at this point. And no one honestly really knows who would come out of a contested convention with the nomination. While there are rules about who is eligible, those rules can literally be changed last minute.

"Stopping Trump" at this point means "throw everything in a blender and hope something horrible doesn't come out, because it's the only thing not *guaranteed* to produce something horrible".
posted by kyrademon at 7:44 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Sanders looks stronger than he is because the GOP realizes that any of their ridiculous candidates could beat him once $1 billion is spent telling Americans how much Sanders would want to raise their taxes and scaring old people about loss of medical control

Hillary on the other hand has been beat in the press and especially republican news outlets every day for years

If Sanders takes her down I think we will have a gold plated White House next year. I hope he does not win any of these states today and I wish that he would do the right thing and drop out
posted by knoyers at 7:46 AM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


a Trump election would bring about a leftist revolution

The Helter Skelter demographic
posted by beerperson at 7:46 AM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Seriously, don't you just get Cruz if you stop Trump? I'd rather have Trump.

This is Mr. Freedom's view. He says Trump winning at least would keep an anti-Planned-Parenthood advocate out of the Oval Office.
posted by chainsofreedom at 7:46 AM on March 15, 2016


Being the spouse of a teacher in Ohio, I have no love for Kasich, but even I have to admit that this negative ad (WARNING: Trump ad) run by the Trump campaign is pretty disingenuous.

I'm convinced at this point that Trump is a disciple of Alistair Crowley. He's bending reality to match his vision by repeating magick spells (ie, lies). He just tosses stuff out there, like that that guy who charged him at the rally might have been affiliated with ISIS - he read it on the internet, you know - , and lets his followers eat it up while the rest of watch on in horror.
posted by charred husk at 7:47 AM on March 15, 2016


No, Bernie Sanders would not run with her.

For the same reason Elizabeth Warren won't -- a Northeasterner adds no regional pull to the ticket, and both Sanders and Warren have more power in the Senate.
posted by Gelatin at 7:48 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sanders looks stronger than he is because the GOP realizes that any of their ridiculous candidates could beat him once $1 billion is spent telling Americans how much Sanders would want to raise their taxes and scaring old people about loss of medical control

I'm gonna be frank - I don't think that kind of political strategy works in this climate. That's like saying that evangelicals were right to count on anti gay marriage positions because it always brought out the vote. 2 Obama terms later and the legality of gay marriage nationwide seems to put the lie to that.

It's a different time now even from 2008.
posted by chainsofreedom at 7:48 AM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


I have a hard time imagining a Cruz nomination coming out of a contested convention. If it gets to the smoke filled rooms stage, everyone in that smoke filled room will despise Ted Cruz.

(Christ, I literally think Trump is at the front of a neo-fascist putsch, and I'd rather have him than Cruz.)
posted by Naberius at 7:49 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hillary on the other hand has been beat in the press and especially republican news outlets every day for years

This is a common but curious talking point for Hillary supporters. "She's been terrible for years."
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:49 AM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


For the same reason Elizabeth Warren won't -- a Northeasterner adds no regional pull to the ticket, and both Sanders and Warren have more power in the Senate.

And that he doesn't want to be Vice President.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:49 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders looks stronger than he is because the GOP realizes that any of their ridiculous candidates could beat him once $1 billion is spent telling Americans how much Sanders would want to raise their taxes and scaring old people about loss of medical control

They're going to say that about anybody who wins the nomination. If fucking Zombie Reagan was the Dem nominee, they'd call him a socialist just like they do with Sanders and Clinton and Obama.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:50 AM on March 15, 2016 [23 favorites]


i stopped being surprised by trump's frontrunner status when one day social media was blanketed with "trump : no laughing matter anymore!" and within days it was all about the donald being attacked by a bird. "this is serious!...lololol did you see the face he made when the bird flapped its wings?!?!"

but what do i know, i've never found his foray into politics to be funny.
posted by nadawi at 7:51 AM on March 15, 2016




I think fears that his primary cycle has heaped too much criticism against Hillary for Democrats to be able to vote for her in November are overblown. Hate and fear of Trump will trump hate and fear of Clinton. Plus, there can always be a message of "make her president in 2016 and primary her in 2020"- if she fails to live up to the populist agitation of this moment.
posted by Apocryphon at 7:52 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders won't be the VP.

He's from the Northeast so no geographic diversity, he's old so the combined age of the ticket is an issue and doesn't bring minority turnout with him.

Long story shot Clinton will almost certainly select a Latino running mate because it will strengthen the anti-Trump coalition. Unfortunately I think sexism will prevent the VP choice from being a woman which is a shame because I think a dual female ticket would be pretty fun.

As much as people like Warren I don't see her being a serious pick for either Clinton or Sanders mainly because she's from the NE and the Democrats will likely want to keep her in reserve if the apocalypse happens and the Brownshirts take control of the White House. You know assuming that Trump doesn't suspend voting.
posted by vuron at 7:52 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is a common but curious talking point for Hillary supporters. "She's been terrible for years."

The mods have repeatedly asked that we stop doing the the whole "Sanders supporters are like this and Clinton supporters are like that" thing, so it'd be great if we didn't keep on doing it.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:52 AM on March 15, 2016 [24 favorites]


I'm gonna be frank - I don't think that kind of political strategy works in this climate.

Trump is literally telling people at his rallies that someone who charged the stage in Dayton, Ohio is a member of ISIS, and those audiences believe him. Alternet has him lying at a rate of once every five minutes. People are still voting for him.

It's a different time now even from 2008.

Yes. Astonishingly, people seem to be getting stupider and more gullible. How do we know? Trump's candidacy wasn't laughed off the ballots.
posted by zarq at 7:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


I have friends who live in downtown Cleveland (like, literally in Playhouse Square), and they are renting out their apartment for the Republican Convention and getting the hell out of Dodge.
posted by chainsofreedom at 7:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Long story shot Clinton will almost certainly select a Latino running mate because it will strengthen the anti-Trump coalition.

If she is the nominee, I would be very surprised if she doesn't select Sherrod Brown.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I have a hard time imagining a Cruz nomination coming out of a contested convention.

If it's honestly contested, I have a hard time believing *any* of them come out of it. Instead, it's going to be somebody else, because one of the reasons the GOP is in this fix is that people who support Trump/Cruz/Rubio (pick 1) won't support Rubio/Trump/Cruz (pick the other two.)

If Cruz-Rubio supporters got along, one of them would be the GOP nominee right now. They don't and won't, and thus, the chances of any of them getting the nod are nil. Expect the GOP to basically say "None of you won, so all of you lose."

That's actually a risk for the Democrats, because they could (chances are low, I agree) actually pick a good candidate and make this an actual race.

If it's dishonestly contested (that is, they pull rule trickery and prevent Trump from the first ballot win he would have gotten) then it turns into a war in the GOP. I don't think they're that dumb.
posted by eriko at 7:54 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I wonder how much triangulating for VP pick Clinton will really be looking to do, given that her husband picked a fellow young moderate Southerner as his VP, and that worked out all right for Bill.
posted by Etrigan at 7:56 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


a two female ticket would also being interesting because should hillary find herself in the big chair and she has a male vp, i suspect we'll see the vp get a sudden outsized role in the administration and in the media focus just by virtue of being the man in the room, sadly.
posted by nadawi at 7:56 AM on March 15, 2016 [20 favorites]


If she is the nominee, I would be very surprised if she doesn't select Sherrod Brown.

Don't pick a D senator right now. That's the *last* fucking thing you need to do is pull another red or purple state D out of the senate.

Pulling Hilary Clinton or Barak Obama out of the Senate is one thing (though Blago fucked things up and we ended up with Kirk) but the odds are good that putting Brown into the west wing means that seat goes R, and if you want Clinton or Sanders to do anything but veto, if you actually want them appointing people, you need the Senate controlled by the Democrats, and you cannot risk losing a seat.

Yes, the races favor the Democrats, but favor does not mean "ensure."
posted by eriko at 7:58 AM on March 15, 2016 [34 favorites]


I'm not American but worry about the flogging Sanders would take in the run up. All the media needs to run with is a single, mildly embarrassing video clip, and then all the flaccid "undecideds" are fearful about backing a loser.
posted by bonobothegreat at 7:58 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


There's something Faustian about this Chris Christie stuff. Except it's like he sold his soul in a really bad deal, and the devil showed up like immediately to drag him into hell.
posted by angrycat at 7:59 AM on March 15, 2016 [27 favorites]


Brokered convention chat! The fun part of that conversation is realizing that despite the looming threat of a Trump third party challenge aside, the GOP has nothing but fallen idols. Who could they put forth to try to stir the base? The failed aristo Romney? The embattled, embearded Ryan? The pro-choice, emBushed Rice? Newt Gingrich? Not only the Republicans have spent all of their time crafting candidates that have no crossover appeal, they don't even have anyone who could cut into the appeal of Trump's base, at least not very much.
posted by Apocryphon at 7:59 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just btw, the link above about a possible Clinton/Sanders ticket is from Talking Points Memo. In it, Tad Devine, a senior Sanders strategist, is quoted hypothesizing about the possibility of Sanders joining Clinton as a VP.
posted by Slothrop at 7:59 AM on March 15, 2016


Cleveland orders 2,000 sets of riot gear for Republican Convention

Why? Don't GOP supporters carry their own?
posted by eriko at 7:59 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


should hillary find herself in the big chair and she has a male vp, i suspect we'll see the vp get a sudden outsized role in the administration and in the media focus just by virtue of being the man in the room, sadly.

Naw, the Veep just isn't that interesting. Unless the Senate is tied or nearly so.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:59 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


well, the big question no one asks is who's going to be trump's vp?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:00 AM on March 15, 2016


I worry about the electoral future of the Democratic party if only candidates from Vermont or Massachusetts have records that are ideologically pure enough to make it through the primary.

The nerve of people having standards!
posted by entropicamericana at 8:00 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


>well, the big question no one asks is who's going to be trump's vp?

Why, Ivanka, of course.
posted by Dragonness at 8:01 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Gary Busey.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Long story shot Clinton will almost certainly select a Latino running mate because it will strengthen the anti-Drumpf coalition.

My money's on Julian Castro.

In the Never-Going-To Happen category: the Clinton/Sanders ticket would be great, mostly because it would cause at least a few hours of gobsmacked peace as their fightiest respective supporters* try to figure it out.

*I'll be fine with whichever one of them wins the nomination, honestly. I just want Drumpf to lose.
posted by thivaia at 8:01 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


well, the big question no one asks is who's going to be trump's vp?

Well, Chris Christie spent yesterday allowing himself to be humiliated and degraded (although many would say deservedly so) on live TV in front of millions, so...
posted by zombieflanders at 8:01 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


> "well, the big question no one asks is who's going to be trump's vp?"

We're not going to find out until the final episode of the Reality Show.
posted by kyrademon at 8:01 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Omarosa
posted by goneill at 8:04 AM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


At this point, he'd be wise to pick someone who would provoke more controversy than he has. Someone who would distract the country while he runs it into bankruptcy. Someone like Omarosa Manigault.
posted by zarq at 8:04 AM on March 15, 2016


Jinx, goneill :D
posted by zarq at 8:04 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


We're not going to find out until the final episode of the Reality Show.

um, isn't that when trump puts his big fat orange finger on the button?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:06 AM on March 15, 2016


> "um, isn't that when trump puts his big fat orange finger on the button?"

You're impatient for Season 2 already?
posted by kyrademon at 8:07 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's the second season cliffhanger.
posted by mochapickle at 8:07 AM on March 15, 2016


His short little vulgar finger, surely
posted by kelborel at 8:08 AM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


Definitely Omarosa.

If Clinton gets the nom vs. Trump, my VP money is on Julian Castro, Cory Booker, or Antonio Villaraigosa. She's not so naive as to think that white people won't be overwhelmingly Trumpist in the general. She knows she'll be needing support from the rest of America.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:08 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


(Can we not with the insults about the way someone looks. Not okay about Clinton, not okay about Trump.)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:08 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


"they could (chances are low, I agree) actually pick a good candidate and make this an actual race"

Unlikely. That's how we've gotten to this point. If there were a good Republican candidate, he would have already declared and started winning primaries. Kasich is probably the textbook good candidate (popular two-term governor of a swing state with a strong legislative background who can appeal to moderates despite being extremely orthodox), and he's polling in the single digits everywhere except Ohio. Scott Walker is another "good candidate", and he dropped out before the voting even started because he couldn't crack 1% in polls. There just isn't a very long bench in the GOP these days. Paul Ryan is basically all that's left.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:09 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cory Booker is from New Jersey. That does her no good.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:09 AM on March 15, 2016


Castro is the odds on favorite because Young and Latino and totally unlikely to win a statewide office in Texas.

Corey Booker would be awesome but NJ makes him unlikely same with Deval Patrick.

Tom Perez is seen as another possible candidate because he's Latino and has solid track record at Labor and Justice.

Much longer odds would be someone like Anthony Foxx, O'Malley, or Bayh.
posted by vuron at 8:09 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Booker and Villaraigosa are from solid blue states, yes.

Counterpoint: Biden is from Delaware.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:11 AM on March 15, 2016


slacktivists

Man this term bugs me. Stop doing political engagement wrong! Oh, you care about the course of the nation ? Well yeah but you don't care enough. You certainly aren't caring in a way that matters!

No sensible person thinks that posting memes or whinging on facebook wins elections, and getting people to go out and pound the ground and vote for more than President - and in non-presidential elections - is important. But to paraphrase Milton, they also serve who only stand and wait to cast a vote and go home.

There's a dude in my facebook friends who I used to work with almost ten years ago. He's probably mid-30s now. For two major elections in my memory he's posted things along the lines of they're all the same, lesser evil is not a choice he's willing to make, don't vote it encourages them blah blah blah.

His first pro-Bernie post showed up in my feed late last year. He went out and voted in the Virginia primary for Bernie, where Bern lost 2:1. But he's still engaged now, two weeks later. I don't know if that'll mean a general vote if Bernie's not on the ballot; he might check back out.

But for now, he's interested in political goings-ons and he's gone out to the ballot box. Maybe for the first time; I know he didn't vote in the 2004. Why do we want to sneer at people who choose to leave the majority of folks who don't vote and get interested, just because it's kind of a weak interest/involvement? Has that shit ever made one of them decide hey, I should really shape up and go make some calls and a donation.

Fuck that. People want to give a damn about politics and get a taste for taking action, I'm going to call that a win and say thanks.
posted by phearlez at 8:11 AM on March 15, 2016 [55 favorites]


Naw, the Veep just isn't that interesting. Unless the Senate is tied or nearly so.

we've painfully learned that what is interesting is what the media tells us is interesting. if a male vp wanted to make his name all it would take is passive aggressively disagreeing with president clinton to get things going. or it could go the other way and everyone could praise him for things she does. women are often not given credit for their own successes - i mean, you only have to notice some of hillary's supporters saying they're voting for her to get another 4 to 8 years of bill clinton or obama to see this play out right in front of us.
posted by nadawi at 8:11 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


I'm starting to worry that Trump's election would be the literal Apocalypse.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:13 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I also wonder this about having our first First Gentleman, if Hillary wins. Especially since that First Gentleman will be Bill, a man so charismatic that he has a magnetic pull on everyone in the room from the second he walks in (quote from MomFreedom, who met him in the 90s). Will we see an expansion of the activities of the First Spouse now that there is a chance that that spouse will be male?
posted by chainsofreedom at 8:14 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Didn't somebody bring up Rick Scott for Trump VP at some point? Seems perfect. Floridian, actual crook, looks like the bad guy from Lawnmower Man.
posted by selfnoise at 8:16 AM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'm starting to worry that Trump's election would be the literal Apocalypse.

That would explain his evangelical support.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:16 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Biden as eternal VP would also be really fun because who else is willing to wash his Trans Am on the White House driveway.
posted by vuron at 8:16 AM on March 15, 2016 [19 favorites]


Naw, the Veep just isn't that interesting.

The entire last thirty years of U.S. presidential electoral history is a direct outgrowth of Ronald Reagan's selection of George H.W. Bush in 1980. Interesting? Maybe not. Important? Bet yer ass.
posted by Etrigan at 8:16 AM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]




Rubio would actually be a perfect running mate for Hillary if he were a Democrat.
posted by fraxil at 8:17 AM on March 15, 2016


Shoot, my bad. Lawnmower Man 2.
posted by selfnoise at 8:17 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Who could they put forth to try to stir the base? The failed aristo Romney? The embattled, embearded Ryan?

I mean, the Romney/Ryan ticket did get 47% last time - I suppose there's a chance that the Republican establishment hopes that a "not-crazy" candidate has an actual shot at winning.

But mostly (IMO) a contested convention would be about the establishment beating the Trump Rebellion into submission; they'd resign themselves to losing this time around but start the process of rejiggering the party optics and structure (i.e., it wouldn't surprise me if there are Republican super-delegates in 2020.)
posted by soundguy99 at 8:18 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


What I want to see most is Bernie doing well in Illinois tonight, for his electoral prospects, but also to make Hillary pay a political price for her ties to the corrupt, soulless "centrist" Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel. That's a healthy precedent to set and good God I have enjoyed watching Sanders rail on Rahm:

"The mayor has no problem putting pressure on teachers when he wants concessions from them. He has no problem arm-twisting the parents on the South Side or the West Side when he wants to close their schools. He is really tough, isn't he? Taking on the children and the parents. But he ain't so tough taking on the big money interests on Wall Street."
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 8:18 AM on March 15, 2016 [24 favorites]


NYTimes: Upheaval at Breitbart News as Workers Resign and Accusations Fly

Everything is terrible and the threat of fascism is far to close, but the collapse of Brietbart would be a tiny sliver of joy in that, because fuck those guys.
posted by Artw at 8:18 AM on March 15, 2016 [47 favorites]


Years ago, I set my browser auto-replace plugin to change all instances of "Rick Scott" to "Off-brand Lex Luthor," and I'd completely forgotten about it until now. *chortle*
posted by duffell at 8:19 AM on March 15, 2016 [54 favorites]


Counterpoint: Biden is from Delaware.

Obama didn't need to make an additional state competitive, because his race meant he would be polarizing and his ability to strip votes away from his opponent would be weakened. Obama needed to shore up his portion of the white vote who would be willing to vote for a black man but also subconsciously needed reassurance that a white guy would be around to "lend a hand." Joe Biden is whiter than Ron Howard in a jar of mayonnaise, so he fit the bill perfectly.
posted by mightygodking at 8:19 AM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Rick Scott for Trump VP at some point? Seems perfect. Floridian, actual crook, looks like the bad guy from Lawnmower Man.

No. I won't have this. No, sir.

The canonical visual comparison for Rick Scott is Bat Boy, beating out Voldemort by a hair. Hair? Get it? Because he's bald.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:20 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


There is a non-insignificant chance of Trump starting his own political party if he gets robbed of the nomination at the convention. I think a lot of Trump voters are truly ready to leave the Republican party, and who knows maybe some Sanders supporters would see the appeal too.
posted by fraxil at 8:20 AM on March 15, 2016


Another election today.... Chicago Top Prosecutor Accused of Clearing 68 Killer Cops Fights to Keep Her Job: In 2008, Anita Alvarez became Chicago's first woman and first Latina state's attorney. After a tenure marred with cover-ups and controversy, many Chicagoans are no longer on her side. Now, whether she keeps her seat is up to the city.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:21 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Unlike clinton, sanders would raise taxes for even the very poor. People might vote for higher taxes for someone else but many will not vote for higher taxation for themselves. Sanders would tax every group more than clinton would.

I think a lot of hysteria against single payer among older voters would be easy and effective, given the past

Sanders' success in primaries with young white voters does not show that he is going to be able to win conservative swing states in a general election after what will be an unprecedented advertising barrage

His views are actually far removed from most Americans

Not a risk I'm comfortable with

Hillary is vulnerable too but not like that
posted by knoyers at 8:23 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Unlike clinton, sanders would raise taxes for even the very poor.

Cite?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:25 AM on March 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


Fascinating analysis from Sam Wang: Losing Ohio Improves Trump’s Chances to Win the Nomination
posted by kelborel at 8:27 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


George Takei shared this viewpoint on Trump vs Sanders on Facebook.

It made me very happy indeed.
posted by the cydonian at 8:27 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Personally I would have more faith in Sanders' revolution if he were further left - on Snowden, federal legalization of marijuana, etc.

The more time goes on, there's no there there really with his campaign, and it's just so weaksauce to bang on about the revolution as the only answer.

I know this will prompt people to add a bunch of links and tell me to read more about Sanders and also watch these here videos, but really. This is my opinion based on my own research.
posted by zutalors! at 8:27 AM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


Hmm. Google' doing some kind of infobox thing if you search the candidates names. Not sure if that's stepping over a line.
posted by Artw at 8:30 AM on March 15, 2016


Let's be honest Clinton doesn't need to expand the Battleground state lists hardly at all in order to win the Presidency although honestly I expect Democrats to be competitive in NC.

Clinton's strategy will be to be competitive in Ohio but mainly to focus on denying Florida and Virginia to Trump. If Florida goes democrat there is virtually no way that the Republicans can win.

I suspect that Clinton will choose Castro mainly because he helps put NC/Virginia into play (the share of minority voters in NC has gone up dramatically) and helps lock down Florida and Colorado. Hell he might even help in Arizona but I think the snowbirds will continue to keep Arizona safely Republican another election cycle although I think the Republican stronghold of Phoenix-Scottsdale is dying off (figuratively and literally).
posted by vuron at 8:30 AM on March 15, 2016


I think a lot of hysteria against single payer among older voters would be easy and effective, given the past

The only way hysterics would happen in that demographic is by telling them you're taking away their single-payer Medicare.
posted by mikelieman at 8:30 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


The only real things knoyers could be talking about are the 0.2% payroll tax to cover paid family and medical leave, and the 2.2% Medicare For All premium. Both of these would be more than made up for in any low- or mid-income household's budget by no longer having to pay for private health insurance. (Source)
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:30 AM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


Counterpoint: Biden is from Delaware.

Obama didn't need to make an additional state competitive, because his race meant he would be polarizing and his ability to strip votes away from his opponent would be weakened. Obama needed to shore up his portion of the white vote who would be willing to vote for a black man but also subconsciously needed reassurance that a white guy would be around to "lend a hand." Joe Biden is whiter than Ron Howard in a jar of mayonnaise, so he fit the bill perfectly.


Oh for sure, and I'm not saying Biden was a bad pick, not at all -- rather that the importance of picking a swing-stater for your running mate is overestimated, relative to other tactical considerations. I think the benefit to Clinton of picking a Hispanic or African-American VP (aiming to increase minority and progressive turnout across the nation) would be greater than the benefit of your Sherrod Brown or your Bill Nelson.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:31 AM on March 15, 2016


Hillary is one of those big, beautiful, fast Clipper ships built in the waning days of sail. Sanders is a plodding side-wheel steamer. Though she probably wins the nom, and maybe wins the general, the future will never belong to her.
posted by klarck at 8:31 AM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


I don't like that comparison because those old ships are lovely :(
posted by saturday_morning at 8:32 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Cleveland orders 2,000 sets of riot gear for Republican Convention

That's a win for commerce AND the police state! The system works!
posted by filthy light thief at 8:32 AM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Sanders says this would be offset by savings from the abolition of health insurance premiums under Medicare for All.

How wouldn't I save money by cutting out the middleman health insurance companies and paying straight into a trust-fund like FICA? I can't imagine very many HR people having trouble replacing the yearly kowtowing to the HMO with a straight 6.5%

Way I see the numbers, under Bernie-care, my family saves a few grand.
posted by mikelieman at 8:33 AM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


And saves my employer even more...
posted by mikelieman at 8:34 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


And then we can roll out a single, nationwide, EHR system, and then have more money for patient care!
posted by mikelieman at 8:35 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]




The future really doesn't belong to Sanders either because let's be honest he was unable to build a compelling case to minority voters until way too late and baring an epic meltdown by Clinton he's exceedingly unlikely to be the nominee.

That being said if someone can do a convincing job of aligning both progressives (economic justice) with minority groups (racial and social justice) in a compelling (and charismatic) package then the future looks very very bright.

The major question is whether the Republicans will pivot fast enough to capture the voters that will no doubt feel left out by a new Democratic Coalition.
posted by vuron at 8:37 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


2.2% tax increase and .2% payroll tax applies for everyone. The average tax burden would go up by $9k. And that doesn't include the additional 6.2% payroll tax that employers would pay would be passed on in many or most instances

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/pf/taxes/bernie-sanders-taxes/

Many voters will not see this as a good trade given that "government controlled" health care is still unpopular (if single payer that was even in the cards in the foreseeable future)

If Sanders is the nominee the Republicans have a great deal of strong new material to work with and I think they would win. They wouldn't even have to be deceptive in their ads, although they will be
posted by knoyers at 8:38 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Thanks for the link, mpbx.

A 6.2 percent income-based premium paid by employers on wage income. This is basically a payroll tax, and most economists agree that the cost of "employer-paid" payroll taxes are passed on entirely to workers in the form of lower wages in the long run. For that reason, I'm treating all payroll taxes as paid by employees, regardless of their ostensible target.

My view is that the very poor, who knoyers said would get a tax increase, are already getting the lowest wages around, and that there's not much of a floor below what they get paid. I don't think that it's fair to count the employer portion as paid by the employee regarding this population in particular.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:38 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


There is a non-insignificant chance of Trump starting his own political party if he gets robbed of the nomination at the convention. I think a lot of Trump voters are truly ready to leave the Republican party, and who knows maybe some Sanders supporters would see the appeal too.

I think the opposite scenario is more likely. At the convention, the RNC supports Trump because going back on their word and disenfranchising millions of party faithful who voted for him would be political suicide. But disgusted conservatives led by pundits such as Bill Kristol and Erick Erickson either join together to support the Constitution Party candidate or they form their own political party and nominate someone more palatable. Trump can't claim the RNC isn't keeping their word.
posted by zarq at 8:39 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Not sure that the very poor see it that way, that there's nothing beneath where they are. Every dollar that you take from them counts for something they need. And they may not be paying for insurance now
posted by knoyers at 8:40 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


For those considering not voting: Please do cast a vote. Not to decide is to decide.
posted by DesbaratsDays at 8:40 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


That being said if someone can do a convincing job of aligning both progressives (economic justice) with minority groups (racial and social justice) in a compelling (and charismatic) package then the future looks very very bright.

The nice thing is that, however dreadful this campaign is, it's already demonstrated that such a combo would be electorally viable in 2020 and beyond, Clinton presidency or no Clinton presidency.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:42 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Unlike clinton, sanders would raise taxes for even the very poor. People might vote for higher taxes for someone else but many will not vote for higher taxation for themselves. Sanders would tax every group more than clinton would.

Republicans get away with it all the time, not sure why this time is somehow different.

I think a lot of hysteria against single payer among older voters would be easy and effective, given the past

If it wasn't enough to sink Obama in 2012, when his not-even-universal private health care system was being described as a fascist socialist takeover of the health insurance industry, I see no reason why it would sink Sanders.

Sanders' success in primaries with young white voters does not show that he is going to be able to win conservative swing states in a general election after what will be an unprecedented advertising barrage

Still don't see any evidence of this at all.

His views are actually far removed from most Americans

Are you sure? 58% of Americans support single-payer health care. "Anger at Wall Street" is one of the rare things that unites Ds and Rs. At this point "Bernie's views aren't like most Americans" is more a weird dogwhistle-y way conservatives are portraying Sanders than actual fact.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:43 AM on March 15, 2016 [30 favorites]


"That being said if someone can do a convincing job of aligning both progressives (economic justice) with minority groups (racial and social justice) in a compelling (and charismatic) package then the future looks very very bright."

Wasn't that the appeal of Obama?
posted by kevinbelt at 8:43 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I still fail to see how the very poor are going to face any tax increase. They make so little that they don't pay income tax, and their wages are so low that employers won't be able to pass on payroll tax increases. Or is being very poor that different than 6 years ago, when I was finally able to move out of that population?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:46 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Wasn't that the appeal of Obama?

The guy won two elections and would probably win a third fairly easily if it was legal.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:46 AM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Why are we even discussing single-payer like it's remotely likely to actually happen in the next decade? Republicans have a stranglehold on the house due to their stranglehold on State Legislatures and because congressional apportionment as a deeply partisan affair in most states. This is unlikely to change anytime soon and the 2020 demographic changes that will happen in the census are unlikely to change this significantly as population shifts will largely reflect population growth in Southern Republican states and population losses in Midwest and NE cities.

The idea that the Democrats will get a majority in the House and a progressive 60 senators (enough to actually get a single-payer system past a filibuster) in the next 10 years is exceedingly unlikely. The brief period that Obama had that was 4 months and there were never 60 progressive votes among Democrats.

Short of the Republican party imploding I just don't think it's possible even if I am willing to concede that economically speaking it might be a good thing.

That being said I think we can achieve universal coverage without necessarily going to a single-payer model.
posted by vuron at 8:46 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


I currently pay about $7200/yr in insurance premiums to insure myself, my wife and my daughter. This is as a state employee, too. Our premiums amount to around 20% of our household income. Bernie's proposals would make a huge positive difference in our household income, even with a tax increase. Also, he supports the highest minimum wage, so I think he would claim that if attacked on his tax proposals. I think too few people understand how much they pay in premiums or realize that few people have super awesome insurance plans through their jobs anymore. I know both my mother and my in-laws just go "gee whiz" and change the subject when they find out how much I have to pay to insure my family. (Note: I am a supporter of both or either Clinton and/or Sanders and I voted today in the primaries)
posted by Slothrop at 8:47 AM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


Rubio would actually be a perfect running mate for Hillary if he were a Democrat.

Don't give them ideas.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:48 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


That being said I think we can achieve universal coverage without necessarily going to a single-payer model.

I want my frickin' public option. I'm almost glad no one is talking about it in the campaign, though, because I think the more stealthily it is done, the more politically feasible it is.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:49 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


But disgusted conservatives led by pundits such as Bill Kristol and Erick Erickson either join together to support the Constitution Party candidate or they form their own political party and nominate someone more palatable.

With an lineup of political talent like that, how could they lose?
posted by Gelatin at 8:49 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I have an acquaintance who feels this way. She prides herself on being extremely progressive and believes that, if Sanders doesn't win the nomination, a Trump election would bring about a leftist revolution.

I know I am way, waaaay late to the party on this comment, but this is precisely the kind of sloppy thinking that should be questioned. (Gently, so as not to scare them, but still.)

How does she expect this to work? What historical examples can she cite for "revolution" following on the heels of the election of a far-right figure? What organizations capable of military action currently exist, and how does she expect others to come into being? Again, how does this compare to other civil wars and insurgent campaigns? What is a strong example of this happening in a highly industrialized country? (ie, a country where you can't really just have the guerrillas hiding out in the mountains?)

Is she familiar with the longue duree, so to speak, of actually-existing left mass campaigns that were not primarily military? How long they took, how much they cost socially, what brought them into being? Again, what is a strong historical example of this happening in a developed country? Or even in a developing country?

Revolutions are like strikes, I suspect. Before you're in one, you think it sounds exciting and dramatic and heart-stirring, and when you're actually in the middle, you find out that it's awful and that resolving things in less dramatic ways is definitely preferable.

It's not that, if Trump is elected, I would have any problem with mass militant organization. Indeed, I expect I'll be involved in mass, militant organization (not the kind with actual guns; more the protest kind). But people really, really need not to have this silly, shallow, careless understanding of history and social change. If there were a Trump presidency and mass militant organizing sufficient to provoke anything even halfway close to "revolution", you would be looking at ten, fifteen, twenty years of social breakdown and chaos in its wake, even if one ended up with an Allende or a Zapatista movement rather than someone charismatic and corrupt. Maybe you could imagine a situation like Venezuela, where you had a charismatic strongman who was flawed but committed to social change. And that's the best case!

It's one thing to have a revolution if you're pushed to the wall; it's another to run over to the wall thinking it will be fun times and everyone home by Christmas.
posted by Frowner at 8:51 AM on March 15, 2016 [74 favorites]


I can't engage honestly and in good-faith with anyone who speaks of Bernie Sanders' tax increases without also speaking about the savings to families that offset them.

Sure, there's a new tax for Universal Healthcare, but that honestly can't be said without also saying, "and you never pay your HMO again, saving YOU money"
posted by mikelieman at 8:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


The thing is, there isn't the infrastructure for a "revolution", mostly peaceful or otherwise. There could be, given five or ten years and a little luck, which is where things are different than when I was younger. But it would be nice if those movements were able to mature in merely bad conditions rather than under fire.
posted by Frowner at 8:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


has backfired by endearing socialism to younger voters and future voters, who might like Obama and work backwards from that to liking socialism

Or just by conflating centre-left market-solution capitalism with actual socialism. You run campaigns against the former by 'smearing' it as the latter, you lose, and suddenly you can't run against the latter because oops they're the same now
posted by saturday_morning at 8:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


i support single payer, but what i have read on the polling is that the numbers supporting single payer change dramatically when the tax increases needed to pull it off are described

don't have a cite, sorry
posted by angrycat at 8:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Would people be happier if Bernie Sanders lived in Fantasyland, and made the pledge, "NO NEW TAXES!"?
posted by mikelieman at 8:54 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Is she familiar with the longue duree, so to speak, of actually-existing left mass campaigns that were not primarily military? How long they took, how much they cost socially, what brought them into being?

Or even the ones that WERE primarily military. How many weeks or months or even years of living in the jungle?
posted by chainsofreedom at 8:54 AM on March 15, 2016


In today's National Post, on the pages dedicated to coverage of Super Tuesday, there is a quarter-page ad with the large tagline: WHY DO YOU THINK THEY CALL IT SUPER?

It's an ad for Health Plus Super Colon Cleanse. And there is a $2.00 off coupon.
posted by Kabanos at 8:54 AM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


and yeah, one could argue that people would save money regardless of tax increases, but it's the stupid reaction against tax increases that defies reason
posted by angrycat at 8:54 AM on March 15, 2016


but it's the stupid reaction against tax increases that defies reason

It all make so much more sense to me now that I've given up the expectation and hope that people will act rationally. That is, sadly, the exception rather than the rule.

Is it Bourbon-o-clock yet?
posted by mikelieman at 8:57 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]



Rubio would actually be a perfect running mate for Hillary if he were a Democrat.

Don't give them ideas.


Right, because Hillary is so Republican. Planned Parenthood would totally support this as an organization that endorsed Hillary.
posted by zutalors! at 8:58 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Today I am feeling like I will vote for anyone who promises to abolish Daylight Saving Time.
posted by Fleebnork at 8:58 AM on March 15, 2016 [39 favorites]


Would it be a roving gang of privatized tax collectors like in the olden days?

Tax Farming?
posted by mikelieman at 8:59 AM on March 15, 2016


Sort of an accidental shift of the Overton window, maybe

On the other side of the aisle, maybe liberals have been calling the Republicans racist fascists for so long, their base has responded...
posted by Apocryphon at 9:00 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I just want to see Trump make Christie bark like a dog. That's the only thing left for Trump to do. Christie's political career is over now.
posted by My Dad at 9:02 AM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


Anita Alvarez became Chicago's first woman and first Latina state's attorney. After a tenure marred with cover-ups and controversy, many Chicagoans are no longer on her side.

I was going to mention that race. The anti-Alvarez consensus candidate is Kim Foxx.

The tipping/crystallizing point for Black Lives Matter here was the shooting of Laquan McDonald; he was unarmed and walking away from officers when he was shot sixteen times by Chicago's Finest. The dashcam video came out a year later and revealed that the CPD had been blatantly lying about the way things went down. Protesters shut down streets in the Loop (rallying cry: Sixteen Shots and a Cover-up) and called for the resignation of Mayor Emmanuel, the CPD Chief (Garry McCarthy, whose head soon rolled as the Mayor's fall-guy-designate) and State's Attorney Alvarez, who was condemned for slow-walking the prosecution of the officer responsible. So we'll see today if they can go two for three.

Other Illinois races to watch: Illinois House 5th, where Democratic representative Ken Duncan, who is accused of helping Republican governor Bruce Rauner in his Scott-Walker-ish crusade to smash the unions. Democrats have a technical supermajority but thanks in large part to Duncan's absence in key votes they have been unable to exercise overrides and such. As a result the state of Illinois has been without a budget since last summer, as the governor refuses to sign a budget that doesn't include the "turnaround agenda" (right-to-work) legislation he says is needed to get out of a structural deficit.

President Obama has actually endorsed Duncan's primary challenger, I believe, which is pretty bad news for Duncan. So this may not be a race that has national implications but it will probably be the one that has the greatest consequences on the state level.

Thinking about the presidential primary, I'll be watching to see how the Sanders/Clinton vote in the city matches up to the Chuy/Emmanuel mayoral election. If Sen. Sanders is to win Illinois, he'll need to do well in the Latino strongholds on the Northwest and Southwest sides of the city, be at least somewhat competitive in the majority-black neighborhoods on the West and Southwest sides, and make some inroads into Clinton's base of support in the wealthy central areas (the Loop and north through the Gold Coast, Lincoln Park and Lakeview). Wild card: the far northwest and far southwest sides, AKA the bungalow belt, which are white middle-class areas with a strong contingent of public employees (cops, firefighters, sanitation workers and such). They're fairly conservative but also staunch trade unionists, so who knows which way they'll lean.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:03 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


In today's National Post, on the pages dedicated to coverage of Super Tuesday, there is a quarter-page ad with the large tagline: WHY DO YOU THINK THEY CALL IT SUPER?

It's an ad for Health Plus Super Colon Cleanse. And there is a $2.00 off coupon.


If this is the National Post I'm thinking of, I'd like to point out that it is a Canadian paper, and that we are grateful that the only colons that may require cleansing here today are our actual intestinal possessions, and not the metaphorical colon of civic society

And now back to watching my man-babe Prime Minister frolicking with pandas, you may join me if you wish
posted by saturday_morning at 9:03 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Would people be happier if Bernie Sanders lived in Fantasyland, and made the pledge, "NO NEW TAXES!"?

I remember back in the '92 cycle, Paul Tsongas debuted the line "I'm running to be President, not Santa Claus", and I thought, well, he's done for.
posted by thelonius at 9:04 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


With an lineup of political talent like that, how could they lose?

They don't have to lose. They just have to tank Trump.
posted by zarq at 9:04 AM on March 15, 2016


I just want to see Trump make Christie bark like a dog. That's the only thing left for Trump to do. Christie's political career is over now.

He'll bring Christie on stage in a gimp suit with a chain leash
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:05 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]




on NPR this morning there was this odd idea that Trump was so personally offended by Obama's mockery of him during the correspondent's dinner, it played a role in his decision to run.

which, can you imagine a Trump presidency after Obama? Holy fucking christ. This personal, 'Saddam tried to kill my daddy' umbrage was bad enough with Bush II. I would feel the need to apologize to the world every single day.
posted by angrycat at 9:09 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Siraj Datoo: Far Right In Europe Hope Donald Trump Will Set Them Free
Sunic, who said that he knows David Duke “very well” and respects “many things he has to say” said the term “white supremacist” is simply used to discredit opponents. Instead, he calls himself a “cultural pessimist.” He’s confident that a Trump presidency would lead to people currently scared of being labelled fascists for their views to speak more freely.

Sunic — and other far-right figures who spoke to BuzzFeed News — also volunteered that their support of Trump stemmed from his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has promoted an uber-conservative agenda at home and issued support for far-right parties across Europe, as well as for Trump.

Ménard, the French mayor, said it was “important” that America “stops demonising Russia.” Britain First’s Golding praised Trump’s attitude and said that working with Russia would help Britain to “obliterate ISIS”. The Belgian MEP Dewinter also suggested that a new US-Russia partnership could force European countries to alter their relationships with Putin.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:11 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


oh npr what garbage won't you repeat with a straight face
posted by entropicamericana at 9:11 AM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


witchen: When a candidate promises to lower taxes, what do they expect to happen?

a) That they'll be able to keep more of the money they earn, working for a living.
b) That programs they disagree with -- usually social service programs that don't affect them directly -- will lose funding.

mikelieman: Would people be happier if Bernie Sanders lived in Fantasyland, and made the pledge, "NO NEW TAXES!"?

Polling consistently says: 'It depends on what those taxes are being used for.' Is the money funding "free" healthcare, education, etc? (Which isn't actually free since it's tax-funded.) Then, yes, raise taxes. Money spent on social service programs the public dislikes, on paying public school teachers or on wars they don't agree with: No, don't raise 'em.
posted by zarq at 9:12 AM on March 15, 2016


They don't have to lose. They just have to tank Trump.

Well, maybe, but I wouldn't trust Kristol or Son of Erick to competently park my car, let alone craft a winning voter coalition.

Meanwhile, national treasure Charles Pierce notes that "the bounds of reality do not apply to the Frankenstein's Monster of the Republican Party."

That's been true since at least the 1980 election, in which the Republicans embraced what George H. W. Bush rightly called "voodoo economics," and have clung ever more tightly to their supply-side fantasy ever since, to the cost of states like Kansas, to say nothing of the nation.

One thing that makes me uneasy is that we can't count on the so-called "liberal media" to hold the candidates to objective reality. Remember 2000, when George W. Bush told whoppers during the debate, and the press made it all about how Al Gore sighed?
posted by Gelatin at 9:15 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Re: Christie, this is like watching season two of The Sopranos, except you could occasionally close your eyes and pretend Sal Bonpensiero would still have a future when it was all over
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:15 AM on March 15, 2016


And I worry that Sanders fans might feel bamboozled when their candidate stacks up some surprising "wins" and ends up losing by a substantial number of pledged delegates.

This is why I expect the Republicans will win the election.

Already we have the narrative going out that Clinton has "bought"the election, and nobody but Wall Street could possibly vote for her; I expect a lot of the people who have done nothing but do negative campaigning against Clinton for the past six months to scream that the election was "stolen", and vote for Trump in a "counter establishment/"anybody but "that woman""move.
posted by happyroach at 9:16 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Chicago voter here. I just got back from my polling place. They were asking everyone for ID. I told them they weren't supposed to ask for ID but they insisted they were told to. They let me vote without showing mine but kept asking those behind me for ID. I tried calling the Board of Elections but can't get through; just emailed but have no idea if anyone's reading emails today.

Also, my ballot didn't match the sample ballot I had pulled from the Chicago BOE website. At the time I assumed "well shit, everything is so redistricted and gerrymandered I'm sure the sample ballot lookup gets it wrong sometimes." It was US Representative and a Judicial subcircuit that were different. It wasn't til I got home that I realized they probably gave me the wrong ballot. I checked against the map on the wall and it looked right but now I'm second guessing myself. So now I just hope that my ballot doesn't get thrown out for being the wrong one. Usually I like voting but today wasn't great. In fact, I care about voting so much that this screwup is making me weepy.

I get that working at a polling place is a thankless, shitty job but I've never been confident at the level of competence on display when I go vote. It can be disheartening.

One good thing though is that I've never seen this polling place busy - usually there's only one or two other people there with me. Today I went in the middle of the day (so not typical pre- or post- work time) and there were several folks there already voting and a few more got in line behind me.
posted by misskaz at 9:16 AM on March 15, 2016 [38 favorites]


I think Obama might be just straight-up trolling Rubio today.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:16 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


A number of progressive organizations have banded together to publish the following open letter urging mass nonviolent mobilization against a Trump candidacy, to include protests, door to door campaigning, voter registration, etc.
posted by sallybrown at 9:18 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm a fan of NPR, but their political coverage gets weird.

On one hand, they went to significant lengths to clarify Cokie Roberts' role with NPR after a column she wrote with her husband a month ago took a very political stance: "GOP must stop Trump - now" (she provides commentary, and isn't an NPR journalist).

Yet they also interviewed Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and let him blather on about the violence done in the name of Islam without countering his closing comment.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:21 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


These local, on the ground reports are great -- please keep them coming.
posted by msalt at 9:21 AM on March 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


A number of progressive organizations have banded together to publish the following open letter urging mass nonviolent mobilization against a Trump candidacy, to include protests, door to door campaigning, voter registration, etc.

I'm there. I'm not going to sit by the sidelines and let actual pure distilled evil become president. To be fair, though, we need this kind of mobilization against the threat of a Cruz theocracy as well.
posted by dis_integration at 9:22 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well people pretty consistently want more government help and less taxes and also a balanced budget. So, uh... shrug.

It does need to be pointed out OVER and OVER and OVER again until it hopefully sinks in that Sen. Sanders (and progressives generally) are the closest side we have to fiscal responsibility. Sec. Clinton wanted war in Syria, and she has no plan to pay for it. The Republicans all want war with Iran, plus absolutely massive tax cuts, and have promised to preserve or cut only slightly the major entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare), they have no plan to pay-for these promises either.

But no politician ever gets called out on their bullshitting except for those nasty tax-and-spend liberals, for whom the whole media starts whipping out their pocket calculators (or just blatantly ignores other savings or offsets, such as the fact that higher taxes to pay for Medicare-For-All are more than offset by insurance premium and cost-sharing savings, administrative simplification and increased economies of scale).
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:23 AM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


oh npr what garbage won't you repeat with a straight face

NPR is desperate to show how "balanced" they are; one can always count on the network to report whatever Republicans think about any given issue. The sad thing is, modern movement conservatism relies on so many phony myths and fantasies -- chief among them that the mainstream media is at all liberal -- that when NPR reports facts inconvenient to the Republican narrative, they'll always just dismiss it as "liberal media."
posted by Gelatin at 9:23 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I just want to see Trump make Christie bark like a dog. That's the only thing left for Trump to do. Christie's political career is over now.

See, this is why I think the convention is likely to be brokered and weird shit's going to happen, and before it's all done they're going to have to make all those cops with their fancy new riot gear stop beating on Black Lives Matter protesters in the streets and come inside and start beating on delegates.

The Republicans have basically gone over the edge. Their brand is fucked, no matter what happens. The question is which flavor of fucked they want. Their choices appear to be:

a) take the nomination away from Trump through some form of convention chicanery. Infuriate the base, watch Trump go third party, and possibly actually beat their candidate in a three-way election that Hillary wins. Spend years trying to rebuild the Republican party against a Democratic party that now pretty much is what they used to be, and offers big capital all the same advantages without the risk of some - I think the term was subhuman morlock - flaring up every six weeks or so and causing splash damage to your brand on twitter.

b) All fall in line and throw their right hands up for Trump, hope for a decent position in the new Reich, and basically ride it out.

Option b didn't work out so well for Chris Christie, did it? Trump is too unpredictable. He's a lone wolf. I don't think he can work as part of a political machine. I don't even see how he's going to pick a VP. So he's just going to tear apart the party apparatus, and especially anybody who looks like they're rising into a position near his own. Nobody's going to survive it.

This, by the way, is why if I were a Republican senator, I'd be begging Obama to nominate someone for the Supreme Court by the end of the week. If they don't take Obama's nice, relatively uncontroversial nominee, their choices for who's going to send them the next nominee are Hillary or Donald Trump.
posted by Naberius at 9:25 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


"throw everything in a blender and hope something horrible doesn't come out,

Why am I suddenly reminded of the movie Gremlins?


If good policy is bad politics,

You can't seriously doubt that good policy is sometimes, perhaps even often, unpopular, particularly before it has been experienced.

then this entire world is fucked up beyond all hope of repair

This one the jury is still out on, but the polar bears have a strong opinion in the affirmative.
posted by bardophile at 9:26 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sure, there's a new tax for Universal Healthcare, but that honestly can't be said without also saying, "and you never pay your HMO again, saving YOU money"

I'm for universal healthcare. I'm for single payer healthcare. But there's assumed privilege in your comment that I think is worth noting. Because you're wrong about that last part.

For a moment, let's assume that you're so poor you cannot afford health insurance. That because of this, you have never paid an HMO. You have never paid an insurance premium. Because you simply cannot afford to add another bill onto your monthly expenses. This the likely reality for most people who are uninsured. 48 million people in this country are uninsured, and a few of them are Mefites. They're not going to save money on Sanders' Universal Healthcare plan. They've never paid for an HMO before and aren't going to start.

There would be huge advantages to expanding medicare to cover everyone and I'm a firm believer that we need to do it.

But no, not everyone will be "saving money" if we do.
posted by zarq at 9:30 AM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Sec. Clinton wanted war in Syria, and she has no plan to pay for it.

FFS, she was Secretary of State while the Syria conflict raged and resisted strong pressure for US intervention. Can we tone down the highly partisan, slanted rhetoric?
posted by msalt at 9:30 AM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


oh npr what garbage won't you repeat with a straight face

Defund NPR... And give the money to PBS NewsHour!
posted by Apocryphon at 9:30 AM on March 15, 2016


I just want to see Trump make Christie bark like a dog. That's the only thing left for Trump to do. Christie's political career is over now.

He'll bring Christie on stage in a gimp suit with a chain leash


Y'all might enjoy this.
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:33 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


But no, not everyone will be "saving money" if we do.

You just described pretty much my entire family ever, and I'm pretty sure they all would have saved thousands and thousands of dollars in unexpected medical bills. And two bankruptcies.
posted by mayonnaises at 9:33 AM on March 15, 2016 [21 favorites]


They were asking everyone for ID. I told them they weren't supposed to ask for ID but they insisted they were told to. They let me vote without showing mine but kept asking those behind me for ID.

UGH!!!!111! I'm sorry that happened. Boo hiss.

My polling place was busy but there wasn't a line (voted about 8:45am). I didn't show ID and wasn't asked, so hopefully that's the norm today! The only slight snafu was that when the poll worker pulled my name up on the touch screen, he accidentally tapped my spouse's name (we have the same last name and share initials) -- if I hadn't been paying attention, he would have been marked as "already voted" on going in to vote. (Which would have been interesting to watch, actually -- he's not someone who puts up with shenanigans at all. :) )
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:34 AM on March 15, 2016


Re: Cleveland during the convention...

I was in Cleveland this past August for a conference (at the same convention center where the GOP will be this summer) and the police presence a full year in advance was already highly visible. I saw way more officers than I normally see in Cincinnati's business district. Can any locals weigh in on whether my perception is correct?
posted by mostly vowels at 9:39 AM on March 15, 2016


Today I am feeling like I will vote for anyone who promises to abolish Daylight Saving Time.

If you say so...
posted by Strange Interlude at 9:40 AM on March 15, 2016


BRB, moving to Russia.
posted by Fleebnork at 9:40 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I am not sure, but I go to a conference every summer at the Duke Energy Center in Cincinnati and I see almost no police there, so. We are opposites?
posted by chainsofreedom at 9:41 AM on March 15, 2016




> If good policy is bad politics,

...then it's Tuesday?
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:42 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cleveland is stealing all of Cincinnati's police, obviously.

(And they can keep them...)
posted by Strange Interlude at 9:43 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oops, looks like the convention is taking place at Quicken Loans arena
posted by mostly vowels at 9:43 AM on March 15, 2016


You just described pretty much my entire family ever, and I'm pretty sure they all would have saved thousands and thousands of dollars in unexpected medical bills. And two bankruptcies.

The specific comment I was replying to said that everyone would save money because they weren't paying an HMO. Which is wrong.

I didn't have health insurance for 11 years in my teens and 20's. I didn't go to doctors for years, because it simply it wasn't possible. Believe me, i know the value of being insured. But if we're going to talk about that, then let's do so. Because the realities of poverty and being uninsured are a hell of a lot deeper than "you won't have to pay your hmo."
posted by zarq at 9:43 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Defund NPR

I disagree; part of the problem as I see it is that NPR has been defunded of so much public money, and so it has had to turn to corporate donors.

If good policy is bad politics

Republicans have known for years they can't be fully honest about their agenda -- see Lee Atwater's famous confession about racial dogwhistles, among other things -- and as a result they've crafted an impressive messaging and marketing machine. I believe Democrats are at a disadvantage in that they know they have better policies; they sincerely believe, and so rely on that sincerity to convince the electorate. Meanwhile, the Republicans counter with simple slogans that have been focus-grouped to hellandgone by the likes of Frank Luntz, to the point that voters consistently tell pollsters they dislike "Obamacare" while approving of its individual components.

Democrats have to stop pretending Republicans are operating in anything like good faith -- Bush v Gore alone should have convinced them -- and stop apologizing for their own good policies, but rather work harder on selling them.
posted by Gelatin at 9:45 AM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Actually, the joke I was making is that NewsHour seems to be overlooked, as far as public news programs go.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:47 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Frowner basically covered what I wanted to say about the idiocy of voting Trump "to cause a revolution." Revolutions like that result in lots of dead people. If you have no choice they might be the only way to go, but to wish for it is to reveal yourself as either clueless or heartless.
posted by emjaybee at 9:47 AM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Democrats have to

SHOW UP FOR FUCKING MIDTERMS
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:47 AM on March 15, 2016 [85 favorites]


For a moment, let's assume that you're so poor you cannot afford health insurance. That because of this, you have never paid an HMO. You have never paid an insurance premium.

This is a valid point. I assume there would be some sort of an offset for low-income folks, possibly an expansion of the earned income tax credit. But, of course, our unicorn glitter progressive Congress will probably have already increased the federal minimum wage to $15/hr, so I think it's fair to say that the working poor are probably going to have more money in their pockets even after higher income tax rates are levied.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:48 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Omfg, the riot gear article linked above is terrifying:

A group of Trump supporters calling itself “The Lion’s Guard” aims to serve as a militia-style security force for attendees at Trump rallies
posted by mostly vowels at 9:51 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Special alert to Trump supporters:
It was just announced. The Republican primaries got moved to Thursday. Ya, um ...authorities decided it was a safety issue to hold R and D primaries on the same day. So you can wait until Thursday.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Today I am feeling like I will vote for anyone who promises to abolish Daylight Saving Time.

I can just imagine Trump promising this in a speech.

TRUMP: "Folks I hate daylight savings, it's like time is a weak loser that can't make a decision. You know who doesn't do daylight savings? China. The Chinese are beating us on trade and they are beating us on time! We are behind by at least 12 hours, and we're behind even MORE when we're off daylight savings!!The first thing I'll do is end daylight savings and set our East coast clocks 14 hours ahead, and we will start winning again! It won't be Morning in America, it will be TOMORROW in America!"
posted by FJT at 9:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


I just got back from my Cincinnati polling place. It was even quieter than usual.
posted by mmascolino at 9:54 AM on March 15, 2016


It was just announced. The Republican primaries got moved to Thursday. Ya, um ...authorities decided it was a safety issue to hold R and D primaries on the same day. So you can wait until Thursday.

Telling them their primary moved isn't going to help. You do want people to vote in their own primary.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:55 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Telling them their primary moved isn't going to help.

On top of that, Republicans need to resort to vote-suppression tactics because when people turn out, Democrats win. Let's leave those shenanigans to them (and fight like hell against them too).
posted by Gelatin at 9:57 AM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


Ohio voter here. I live in a college town in a very conservative district. There was a voting line (mostly students) out the door, more people voting than I have ever seen here. I saw a number of Bernie t-shirts, but the student body tends to be fairly conservative as well. Anecdotally, I haven't seen a single sign for Trump around. I voted for Bernie.
posted by Bistle at 10:00 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


This is a valid point. I assume there would be some sort of an offset for low-income folks, possibly an expansion of the earned income tax credit. But, of course, our unicorn glitter progressive Congress will probably have already increased the federal minimum wage to $15/hr, so I think it's fair to say that the working poor are probably going to have more money in their pockets even after higher income tax rates are levied.

The Sanders plan expands Medicare to cover everyone. So coverage and premiums would likely be similar to Medicare A and B.

Currently, if you qualify, (as a senior) Medicare A is free. Part A is essentially hospital insurance. It covers most medically-necessary care in a hospital or nursing facility. It also covers home health aides and hospice care. Part B covers everything else.

Part B is medical insurance and it requires a monthly premium. It covers most medically-necessary doctors' services, including preventive care. It also includes hospital outpatient services (emphasized here because they're not covered by Part A!,) ambulance services, lab tests and scans like x-rays. In addition, it covers some of the home health care costs that are not covered by Part A, including certain kinds of durable medical equipment.

So what happens if someone gets sick and goes to the ER to get antibiotics as an outpatient? Not covered by Part B.

I haven't read all of the Sanders plan. But I'm guessing that's addressed. Because that's how many uninsured people probably get medical care -- a visit to the ER.
posted by zarq at 10:02 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'll be shocked if this election doesn't come down to two white men.

Unfortunately the more I learn about the details of Sander's actual proposals -- like how the best case scenario for "free college" proposal actually realistically means "free public universities in maybe 3 states." and how his proposal for "single payer healthcare" depends on somehow getting tax increases through congress -- the sadder it makes me.

The craziest thing is that while Sanders voted for Obamacare, he criticizes it but then builds a college plan that is weaker but has the exact same flaw --it relies on buy-ins from individual states, the vast majority of which have republican legislatures that will never go for it. Of course, he can't do it any other way, because public universities are not controlled at the federal level the way the way they are in countries with free or cheap college.

Meanwhile, on the far left and the right people are talking about indicting Hillary for the exact same things Rice and Powell did that nobody has ever mentioned.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:06 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Why can't we indict Rice and Powell too?
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:10 AM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


the police presence a full year in advance was already highly visible. I saw way more officers than I normally see in Cincinnati's business district. Can any locals weigh in on whether my perception is correct?

Probably not so much, TBH. I don't get to downtown Cleveland all that often, but starting from the rebuilding of Terminal Tower as a shopping/dining center in the late 80's there's been a more-or-less-continual process of improving/gentrifying downtown and the immediate surroundings, so the cops have maintained a fairly strong presence there for years.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:10 AM on March 15, 2016


Meanwhile, on the far left and the right people are talking about indicting Hillary

The indictment's out of our hands. It'll happen or it won't.
posted by Trochanter at 10:10 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, I should add... Part B is $121.80 per month if your individual income is less than $85K annually.

I believe it's possible to qualify for free Part B, but I don't know how low your income has to be. (I think it's around $1200 per month or lower, but am not sure.)
posted by zarq at 10:11 AM on March 15, 2016


My favorite part about voting in Ohio is the sticker they give you. It says "I [Picture of the State of Ohio] Voting." I Ohio voting, why doesn't everybody Ohio voting?
posted by Bistle at 10:12 AM on March 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


Meanwhile, on the far left and the right people are talking about indicting Hillary for the exact same things Rice and Powell did that nobody has ever mentioned.

If by "nobody", you mean "actually realistically pretty much everyone", then sure.
posted by Etrigan at 10:13 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Why can't we indict Rice and Powell too?

Here's hoping the GOP establishment nominates Rice, then.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:14 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


well, Ohio is shaped like a jagged, pointy heart...
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:15 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I wish Condi would come to her senses, cross the aisle and run as Bernie's VP. She's too good for them. And Colin for Sec State. Come on guys.
posted by Trochanter at 10:18 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why can't we indict Rice and Powell too?

Because it's not at all clear that Rice, Powell or Clinton have done anything wrong or illegal.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:18 AM on March 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


Two questions that occur to me, as a Canadian who is following the election pretty closely:

1. As intimated upthread, I'm really surprised by the Republicans delaying the supreme court nominee on a pure gamesmanship level. The betting markets are all showing the Democrats as pretty heavy favourites to take the general election. Wouldn't the Republicans have a much better chance of getting a justice they can live with through right now than they would in the first year of a Clinton or Sanders presidency? Not to mention the fact that Trump's likely nominees would probably be left of centre on social issues too?

2. Isn't the Clinton indictment thing kind of a red herring? It doesn't look like there is any chance of an indictment coming through before the general election. And if Hillary becomes president, then she can't be indicted without first being impeached, right? So she only faces indictment if she doesn't win, which renders the whole thing moot?
posted by 256 at 10:20 AM on March 15, 2016


I wish Condi would come to her senses, cross the aisle and run as Bernie's VP. She's too good for them. And Colin for Sec State.

No. No no no no no.
posted by aabbbiee at 10:21 AM on March 15, 2016 [19 favorites]


> "well, Ohio is shaped like a jagged, pointy heart..."

*stares at Ohio map*

... I ... guess so? In the same sort of way that a car is shaped like a rectangular, if you ignore all the bits where it isn't?
posted by kyrademon at 10:21 AM on March 15, 2016


if she were married (to a man), i thought condi had a great chance of being the first female and first black president. but alas, she doesn't have a spouse and that is seen as suspicious by large groups of people.
posted by nadawi at 10:22 AM on March 15, 2016


(i'm not advocating a condi presidency, i just thought if she had done the expected marriage/kids thing, she would have had a good shot at the office)
posted by nadawi at 10:23 AM on March 15, 2016


We already have an African American female national security advisor surnamed Rice. And the foreign policy controversies Susan's embroiled in are far less problematic than Condi's.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:24 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


2017: Trump is so bad as president that massive amounts of Americans try fleeing to Mexico but there's this HUGE FREAKING WALL.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:24 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


well, Ohio is shaped like a jagged, pointy heart...

In kinda the same way that the heart shape is shaped like an actual heart, sure.
posted by Etrigan at 10:25 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I believe it's possible to qualify for free Part B, but I don't know how low your income has to be. (I think it's around $1200 per month or lower, but am not sure.)

Um, yes. You can be dually-enrolled into both Medicare and Medicaid if your income is below 100% of the federal poverty line, about $1000 for an individual and $1200 for a household of two (it is tied to inflation and I don't remember the new 2016 numbers off the top of my head). In this case, Medicaid covers most of the costs that Medicare doesn't pay for, including part B premiums. You might end up with some very small (like $2.00 or $3.90 small, in IL at least) copays for medications and doctor visits.

Of course, many people go with a Part C (Medicare Advantage) plan, which is basically a private plan that replaces parts A/B/D for a somewhat higher premium, usually in the range of $130/mo I think. That option might or might not remain in an expanded Medicare program.

Regardless, it's a bit of a clunky system* and I assume everything would get bundled together under a single payer system -- the issue right now is that there is one federal program that handles seniors & people with permanent disability (Medicare) and another state/federal partnership program that handles low-income people (Medicaid).

I also am not sure how premiums would change under a single-payer system. Right now Medicare is funded through a payroll tax on all workers plus premiums for Parts B and D for most people, and some people do have to pay for Part A if they don't have enough work quarters to qualify for premium-free Part A. But Medicare as it stands right now also is covering the oldest and sickest part of the population; if it were expanded to cover everyone then premiums could go down. Depending of course on how much of an increase you have in payroll taxes to cover the increased costs.

*understatement of the year
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:25 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


psst.

I Heart Ohio Voting

(I woulda linked to a pic of my own sticker but forgotten passwords etc etc.)
posted by soundguy99 at 10:26 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm really surprised by the Republicans delaying the supreme court nominee on a pure gamesmanship level. The betting markets are all showing the Democrats as pretty heavy favourites to take the general election. Wouldn't the Republicans have a much better chance of getting a justice they can live with through right now than they would in the first year of a Clinton or Sanders presidency?

It's a matter of timing. Wait 'till Trump gets the nod. They'll confirm a ham sandwich.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:27 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


alla yall ohio-is-heart-shaped deniers can hate, but clearly the ohio secretary of state agrees with me
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:27 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I Bloody Steak Voting?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:28 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


> Ben Carson: Even if Trump's a bad president, it'll only be 4 years

I wouldn't be so sure. The way Trump behaves, I'll be surprised if he doesn't commit one or more blatantly impeachable offenses once he's in office, and if the establishment Republicans really hate him as much as I keep reading that they do and they genuinely fear that he's destroying the party, they might just cooperate with the Democrats if the later try to impeach him.
posted by homunculus at 10:28 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


It looks more like a severed chicken head plummeting to the ground beak-first than a heart, really.
posted by kyrademon at 10:28 AM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


a potent metaphor for this election
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:29 AM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'll be surprised if he doesn't commit one or more blatantly impeachable offenses once he's in office, and if the establishment Republicans really hate him as much as I keep reading that they do and they genuinely fear that he's destroying the party, they might just cooperate with the Democrats if the later try to impeach him.

Yeah, one reason why I don't think Trump himself is the most dangerous threat ever is because I'm pretty sure that both parties can work together to impeach him if he does something truly flagrant. He might have a few turncoat opportunists endorsing him, but he'd have to do a lot more to win over a majority of Republican legislators, much less Democrats.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:32 AM on March 15, 2016


It looks more like a severed chicken head plummeting to the ground beak-first than a heart, really.

Dear kyrademon, please accept this Official Key To The State Of Michigan, for services rendered.
posted by Etrigan at 10:33 AM on March 15, 2016 [22 favorites]


I wish Condi would come to her senses, cross the aisle and run as Bernie's VP. She's too good for them. And Colin for Sec State.

No. No no no no no.


Yeah, absolutely not.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:33 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I also didn't get asked for ID here in Chicago. The only problem at my polling place was a crotchety old man giving the poll workers a hard time because of the way the ballot scanner machines work (they briefly spit your ballot back out if you undervote, and he thought people would see who he voted for). Which, I guess his complaint was sorta valid, but he was being extremely rude to all the (non-white) poll workers in a really awful way. I guess I also failed to grab one of the little "thank you for voting" slips of paper because I couldn't get away from that terrible old man fast enough, but those are a lousy substitute for a sticker anyway.
posted by gueneverey at 10:36 AM on March 15, 2016


I wish Condi would come to her senses, cross the aisle and run as Bernie's VP.

Setting aside for only a moment Rice's spectacular incompetence as National Security Advisor -- 9/11 happened on her watch, let's not forget -- she was as dishonest as the day is long when it came to selling W's Excellent Iraqi Adventure. Clinton deserves to be chided for her calculated support for that disaster, but Rice was one of its architects and chief advocates. Not to mention her unflagging support for the entire miserable failure that was Bush and his presidency. As a Republican, Rice would undoubtedly support whatever hare-brained tax cuts and deregulatory measures came out of the Republican House. No, thank you.
posted by Gelatin at 10:36 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


One more thing regarding medicare and health care....

I think it's important to talk about the details of healthcare coverage. Because it's fine to have "coverage for everyone" as a talking point, but what does that coverage actually cover?

It's vitally important (imo) for us not to view poverty through the lens of what the middle, working or wealthy classes think might help, but rather what will in fact help people. How do poor people use hospitals? What do they do when they get sick but can't see a doctor? Universal healthcare can't just be applied. It has to alleviate problems. It has to not only create preventative care systems to help people get sick less frequently, but give them access to the care and medications they need to get well. Because someone who gets sicker and sicker and can't see a doctor but also has to work to survive probably will wind up getting other people sick in the process.

That's one of the reasons I brought up medicare. The question of whether Sanders' plan adds hospital outpatient services to its basic medicare expansion for the poor is deeply important. Because the fact that it's not part of Part A right now is a travesty.

When I was uninsured and poor, I went to the ER as an outpatient if i got sick, and then pled poverty and didn't pay my bill. If that happened, I would probably miss a day of work. As a kid, that's likely not such a big deal. (I mean, it was for a couple of years at 19 and 20 because i was pitching in to help support my mother at the time.) But if Medicare did cover those visits for everyone, that would mean a great deal to anyone who ever showed up at the ER needing an antibiotic. Hell, it would mean that people would go get diagnosed and hopefully receive the care they need, rather than assume they'd get better in a few days.

Right now, if you're on Medicare Part A but not Part B, the equation changes from "I can't afford to get sick as an outpatient, ever -- only hospitalized" to: "What happens if i need to go to the ER and get a chest x-ray as an outpatient? If they check me in, I'm covered. But if not, I'm screwed." And in an ER, it's a catch-22 and out of your hands. They won't admit you ​unless​ the chest x-ray shows you need to be admitted. So... you have it in the ER. Is it covered by Medicare Part A? Maybe not. Definitely not if you're not admitted. If you are admitted, it was done in the ER when you hadn't been admitted yet. The whole system is screwed up. Something so simple that it needs to be addressed -- but if you haven't been through it or don't know the system, would you even know what questions to ask when formulating legislation to make sure people aren't falling through a coverage gap?

And again, ANY coverage is MUCH MUCH better than NO coverage. At least Sanders HAS a plan to cover more people. Clinton isn't even entertaining the idea!

But the devil is most certainly in the details, and if coverage isn't adequate then that matters. A LOT.
posted by zarq at 10:37 AM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


The many mysteries surrounding Bernie Sanders’s single-payer health care plan
Sanders has staked his campaign for president on a platform of converting the U.S. health care system into a $14 trillion single-payer program run by the government. His opponent for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, has criticized the cost and the political feasibility of his plan, but Sanders makes it sound simple: If Europe can do it, so can we.

Experts say it’s not so simple, in part because no large free-market country, not in Europe or even Canada, has ever tried what Sanders is proposing — to socialize an industry that accounts for nearly one-fifth of the national economy.

“It is not just a problem of the politics,” said Sherry Glied, dean of the Wagner School of Public Service at New York University. “The devil truly is in the details in designing single payer – you have to define what you are going to give up, the trade offs, and once you do that [single payer] isn’t a simple elegant thing anymore.”
[...]
“There is only one way that I know of that you can provide universal, cost effective and comprehensive health care for all of our people,” Sanders said in 2009 while ACA was being debated in the Senate. “That is a Medicare for all single-payer system.”

Sanders has not yet offered key details about what such a system would look like if he were to enact it, such as how much it would pay doctors and what treatments would be covered. Those details could all significantly change how people use health insurance and how much it would cost the government.

The lack of detail makes it very difficult to estimate how his plan would change the economy. So does the lack of any comparable historical precedent for what he is proposing.
posted by OmieWise at 10:41 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Mod note: Several comments deleted. To keep these threads being something we can do here, folks need to not make it personal, not say "you people" are terrible, etc, and seriously, do not bring suicide/homicide talk in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:41 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Meanwhile, Congress is hard at work "Recognizing magic as a rare and valuable art form and national treasure."
posted by melissasaurus at 10:42 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Frowner basically covered what I wanted to say about the idiocy of voting Trump "to cause a revolution." Revolutions like that result in lots of dead people. If you have no choice they might be the only way to go, but to wish for it is to reveal yourself as either clueless or heartless.

(Warning: anecdata ahead!) Speaking as a white male, nearly every single person I've heard espousing the wish that Trump become President in order to usher in a leftist revolution... has also been a white male. Realistically speaking, we'd be the least likely people to be killed in an anti-Trump revolution. So hey, fellow white dudes out there: let's maybe think about which "we the people" that glorious revolution would be helping!
posted by duffell at 10:43 AM on March 15, 2016 [19 favorites]


It's difficult to have conversations if someone says "the politics of this are bad," and the response is that the politics are not a description of the thing-as-it-is. Saying that it's a tough sell to folks that their taxes will go up is in no way equivalent to saying that they won't receive savings elsewhere or that it's a bad idea. When we are talking about a general election, we are always talking about messaging as well. American voters are not particularly known for paying attention to the asterix.
posted by OmieWise at 10:44 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Meanwhile, Congress is hard at work "Recognizing magic as a rare and valuable art form and national treasure."

Why not? Magical thinking is essential to modern movement conservatism.
posted by Gelatin at 10:44 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


if she were married (to a man), i thought condi had a great chance of being the first female and first black president. but alas, she doesn't have a spouse and that is seen as suspicious by large groups of people.

If you're a strong female these people figure you dine at the Y regardless. See all the seekret lesbean stuff that's always going on about HRC.
posted by phearlez at 10:45 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, Collin "Iraq TOTALLY has yellowcake uranium and WMDs, you guys!" Powell is not a guy I want anywhere near the Presidency. He sold his (considerable, even among liberals at the time) credibility down the river when he got up in front of the UN and helped put his stamp on Bush's war plans.
posted by emjaybee at 10:46 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


MetaFilter: a severed chicken head plummeting to the ground beak-first
posted by Foosnark at 10:46 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


The lack of detail makes it very difficult to estimate how his plan would change the economy. So does the lack of any comparable historical precedent for what he is proposing.

Here's what it says on his site
"Bernie’s plan would create a federally administered single-payer health care program. Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans. Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs.
...
As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.
There are some details on that page. But yeah, right now it's a summary description, not a full-fledged plan. But it's good to see that it would combine benefits for wider coverage.
posted by zarq at 10:47 AM on March 15, 2016


This has all been reported on at length for the last few months, and at least in response to her Iraq vote and the AIDS disaster, she has also responded at length. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging and reporting what has happened and holding her accountable. But at some point Americans are going to have to vote for one candidate or the other, and if she becomes the candidate we owe it to ourselves to not shoot ourselves in the face over who sits behind the Resolute desk for the next 4 years.

We’ll have to agree to disagree, then. I don’t think voting for a profit-driven invasion falls into the “ugh so sorry I missed your birthday that one time, now that it’s out in the open let’s move on” category. If the Democrats don’t want to be reminded of their candidates’ death tolls, they would do well to select candidates that don’t have one. There are over 318.8 million Americans who have never placed a Senate vote to kill people in another country for resources.
posted by threeants at 10:51 AM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


And how many of these 318.8 million are actually running for President in 2016?
posted by soundguy99 at 10:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


if she were married (to a man), i thought condi had a great chance of being the first female and first black president. but alas, she doesn't have a spouse and that is seen as suspicious by large groups of people.

I can't think of Condi without thinking of the description of her from that really long, allegedly nonfictional SomethingAwful article about the Bush administration. Apparently, everybody liked her, she didn't seem to do much beyond work and exercise (at home) to Led Zeppelin, and she also had mysteriously wonderul-smelling hand cream.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:54 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


If you're a strong female these people figure you dine at the Y regardless. See all the seekret lesbean stuff that's always going on about HRC.

sure, of course, people say all sorts of weird stupid things based on their own bigotry, but i still think if she had the sort of family that republicans like they would have voted for her, especially if she were running against a dem who was a woman and/or black. i honestly always thought our first non-white and/or non-male president would be a republican, actually, and was pleasantly surprised it didn't work out that way.

(although, i will say, as someone who has been hearing seekrit sex scandal rumors about hillary since i was a small child, those closer to home always seemed to argue that she had a cavalcade of cocaine providing young men that kept her company while bill was driving around in his limo with young women - not that this has any basis in fact, but i heard it long before they hit the national stage and it has persisted)
posted by nadawi at 10:55 AM on March 15, 2016


The lack of detail makes it very difficult to estimate how his plan would change the economy. So does the lack of any comparable historical precedent for what he is proposing.

That article raises some valid questions, but is very scaremongery and at several points is close to outright lies. For instance, the ACA has actually cost a lot less than estimated, so while it's technically accurate to say that "estimates of the cost of health care spending also have a history of being completely wrong. Early studies of the cost of Medicare were off by billions of dollars and the Obama administration continues to grapple with shifting ACA budget expectations" is, at best technically correct but highly misleading.

It's also self-contradictory: "no large free-market country, not in Europe or even Canada, has ever tried what Sanders is proposing — to socialize an industry that accounts for nearly one-fifth of the national economy." vs., buried lower in the article: "Canada is the best and most recent example of a country attempting a health care plan similar to the one Sanders’s proposes, Glied said. The Canadian system evolved over decades from a universal plan that started in a single province in the 1940s."

I think this is a derail and this thread is going to be big enough without continuing, but maybe I will do an FPP about health insurance designs sometime.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:55 AM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Apparently, everybody liked her, she didn't seem to do much beyond work and exercise (at home) to Led Zeppelin, and she also had mysteriously wonderul-smelling hand cream.

And that hand cream was made from... petroleum!
posted by Apocryphon at 10:58 AM on March 15, 2016


I think this is a derail and this thread is going to be big enough without continuing, but maybe I will do an FPP about health insurance designs sometime.

Yeah, sorry for my part in the derail. I know it's nominally on topic, but I still don't want to veer the conversation too far off course. Obviously this is a topic i feel strongly about. :)
posted by zarq at 10:58 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


“It is not just a problem of the politics,” said Sherry Glied, dean of the Wagner School of Public Service at New York University. “The devil truly is in the details in designing single payer – you have to define what you are going to give up, the trade offs, and once you do that [single payer] isn’t a simple elegant thing anymore.”

I choose to give up Health Insurance Companies, and as a trade-off, we use the money saved on overhead for patient care.
posted by mikelieman at 10:59 AM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Just voted in Illinois.

We have an open primary, and you can select any ballot you like. The woman behind me said, "But I'm a registered democrat, so..." The poll worker persisted in convincing her that she really could take any ballot she liked. At this, the woman said, "Well, then I'll be voting against someone instead of for someone... Let's go with the republican ballot."

Strangely, though, the poll workers do have to call out your ballot choice loudly and publicly; supposedly it's state law(?). It appears to serve no functional purpose, because the people they're calling to shouldn't be expected to keep track of which voter is getting which ballot that way, and the paper slip with printed sticker that you bring over to them serves the purpose much more reliably anyway. I know of one person for whom that actually dissuaded them from picking a ballot of the "opposite" party, which seems to be the only purpose it could serve.

The guy by the ballot scanning machine said they hadn't been given any "voted" stickers. :-(
posted by whatnotever at 10:59 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


As far as I am concerned, Condi belongs in prison along with the rest of C-plus Augustus's war cabinet.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:59 AM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


That's not really a trade-off, but since there's no downside to getting ride of the heath insurance companies, you don't have any trade-offs...
posted by mikelieman at 11:00 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am very entertained by the notion that the GOP is so bankrupt of viable candidates is that they're reduced to mining the past for failed figures. But also the prospect of Clinton v. Rice always reminds me of this wondrous treatise.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:00 AM on March 15, 2016


I surprised every here speculating about VP choices is missing the most obvious choice for Sanders: Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN).

He's black, so that should help bolster Bernie's relative weakness there. He's from the Midwest, so that should help balance out the Brooklyn accent and the Vermont-ness. Most importantly though, after 8 years of reactionary yowling about a socialist Muslim in the White House, we would actually have a socialist and a Muslim in the White House.

The choice is obvious, Sander/Ellison 2016: Turn the Bern Up to 11.
posted by Panjandrum at 11:01 AM on March 15, 2016 [63 favorites]


Strangely, though, the poll workers do have to call out your ballot choice loudly and publicly; supposedly it's state law

I also voted in Illinois, they didn't do that for me. Just handed me my ballot. Perhaps it is a local law that doesn't impact all precincts?
posted by Green With You at 11:03 AM on March 15, 2016


A Jewish/Muslim ticket. Holy moly. How's that for neutrality on Israel-Palestine?
posted by Apocryphon at 11:03 AM on March 15, 2016 [19 favorites]


the poll workers do have to call out your ballot choice loudly and publicly; supposedly it's state law

Really?!? That's never happened to me and I've voted in every primary and general election since moving to Illinois in '09.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:04 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]




I do not understand the super narrow focus on the details of his health care plan when Clinton barely has one at all ("let the states add a public option" and defend ACA is the most I've seen from her). How can Sanders' plan simultaneously be so unlikely that many of the same people critiquing it say "it will never happen, you silly starry-eyed idealists" but also see it worthy of fisking up and down for every detail? It is kind of a weird. double-standard. Of course the plan would change as it was debated, voted on, and implemented - everybody knows that. Of course a lot of details would need to be hammered out. I just don't see how anyone could look at Sanders' record and assume he would be OK with loopholes that leave out poor people, even if we can find loopholes in his policy statements (which, again, are vastly more detailed than anything Clinton has put forth).

More links on Sanders and policy:
Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs: "Sanders is right to reject that philosophy and to attack the stagnation of Democratic Party mainstream economic policy."
New UMass economics study demonstrates that a tax on Wall Street speculation could easily pay for Sanders' college tuition proposal
Tech policy activists find Bernie Sanders is best bet
Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors, NYT
When it was wildly unpopular politically, Sanders backed a pride parade. In the LGBT community, word got out: Burlington was a place trans Americans could be safe
posted by dialetheia at 11:07 AM on March 15, 2016 [20 favorites]




Meanwhile, Congress is hard at work "Recognizing magic as a rare and valuable art form and national treasure."

Wow, somebody in Congress is apparently really, really into David Copperfield:
Whereas David Copperfield, introduced to magic as a boy growing up in New Jersey, has been named a Living Legend by the Library of Congress;

Whereas David Copperfield, with 21 Emmy Awards, 11 Guinness World Records, and over four billion dollars in ticket sales, has impacted every aspect of the global entertainment industry;

Whereas David Copperfield, through his magic, inspires great positive change in the lives of Americans;

Whereas people consistently leave David Copperfield’s live magic show with a different perspective than when they entered;

Whereas Rebecca Brown of Portland, Oregon, left a David Copperfield magic show with a newfound inspiration to pursue her lifelong, unfulfilled passion for dance;

Whereas three months after Rebecca Brown attended the David Copperfield magic show, she performed her first choreographed recital in Portland, Oregon’s Pioneer Square;

Whereas programs such as Project Magic, created by David Copperfield, use magic as a form of therapy for children with physical, psychological, and social disabilities;
posted by parallellines at 11:07 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Strangely, though, the poll workers do have to call out your ballot choice loudly and publicly; supposedly it's state law(?).

I also voted this morning in Chicago, and there was no such requirement. (On preview: what Green With You said.) The only choices available for me if I chose a Republican ballot would have been for President and US Senate, so even if I did want to vote strategically, taking the Republican ballot would have been foolish, especially since we really need to kick out Anita Alvarez.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 11:09 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well, this election is a final countdown.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:09 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


A Jewish/Muslim ticket. Holy moly. How's that for neutrality on Israel-Palestine?

And for Secretary of State, obviously, Justin Amash, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and a second-generation Palestinian Christian immigrant. *mind boggles*
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:09 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Finally, the coalition government that will bring peace to the Middle East.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:10 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


It is kind of a weird. double-standard.

someone who wants to upend the status quo has to have more details than someone who wants to continue it. that doesn't seem odd to me.
posted by nadawi at 11:11 AM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


We’ll have to agree to disagree, then. I don’t think voting for a profit-driven invasion falls into the “ugh so sorry I missed your birthday that one time, now that it’s out in the open let’s move on” category. If the Democrats don’t want to be reminded of their candidates’ death tolls, they would do well to select candidates that don’t have one. There are over 318.8 million Americans who have never placed a Senate vote to kill people in another country for resources.

They're not running for President. Clinton is, and Sanders is, and the Republican circus are. If Clinton gets the nomination, she'll be running against one of the Republicans.

At that point, you only have one choice if you actually hold progressive beliefs. The choice will be that nominee, or President Trump/Cruz/whatever monster emerges from their convention.

Literally any position you hold dear (income inequality, racial equality, immigration, etc) will be 1000000x worse under that Republican. If you care about the people who would be affected by that, your choice is clear.

"But what about her vote for the Iraq War!? What about the 100,000 dead Iraqis!?"

Will withholding a vote from Clinton resurrect them? Will withholding a vote from Clinton undo the war? Will withholding a vote from Clinton undo anything you have against her?

No, but withholding a vote from Clinton will help the Republican nominee win if she's the Democratic nominee.

You don't have to agree to disagree. You have to acknowledge that if you are sincere in any progressive position you espouse, the only option is to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, no matter how personally odious you might find them, because the Republican alternative is infinitely worse. When President Trump is kicking your non-white/straight/Christian/etc friends' teeth in, they won't be very comforted that you've kept your conscience as pure as the driven snow.

It's not about Clinton being necessarily better, or owing the Democrats the vote, or party loyalty, or personally approving of her. It's about not having a Republican be President and hurting many people. If Sanders gets the nomination I'll vote for him in a heartbeat over the Republican, because whatever issues I have with him are dwarfed by the issues I have with Trump or Cruz or Ryan or Romney or...
posted by Sangermaine at 11:14 AM on March 15, 2016 [48 favorites]


Honestly, he has plenty of details. His plan is much simpler than the status quo and doesn't need fifteen three-ring binders to describe - one of the key benefits of single-payer is doing away with the vast complexity that creates those loopholes in the first place.

I always go back to this Corey Robin piece about health care complexity: "Aside from the numbers, what I’m always struck by in these discussions is just how complicated Obamacare is. Even if we accept all the premises of its defenders, the number of steps, details, caveats, and qualifications that are required to defend it, is in itself a massive political problem. As we’re now seeing.

More important than the politics, that byzantine complexity is a symptom of what the ordinary citizen has to confront when she tries to get health insurance for herself or her family. As anyone who has even good insurance knows, navigating that world of numbers and forms and phone calls can be a daunting proposition. It requires inordinate time, doggedness, savvy, intelligence, and manipulative charm (lest you find yourself on the wrong end of a disgruntled telephone operator). Obamacare fits right in with that world and multiplies it."
posted by dialetheia at 11:15 AM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


re: announcing chosen ballot at the voting place:

I also voted in Illinois, they didn't do that for me.
...
Really?!? That's never happened to me and I've voted in every primary and general election since moving to Illinois in '09.
...
I also voted this morning in Chicago, and there was no such requirement.

Interesting. So I looked it up. The relevant statute, I assume:
Any person desiring to vote at a primary shall state his name, residence and party affiliation to the primary judges, one of whom shall thereupon announce the same in a distinct tone of voice, sufficiently loud to be heard by all persons in the polling place.
posted by whatnotever at 11:15 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Quite honestly, as terrible as supporting the Iraq War was, she was hardly alone in that. If you're going to criticize her for militancy in foreign policy, criticize her tenure at State. Libya, Haiti, Honduras, etc. should be brought up before Iraq, because those are places we might actually be able to do something about immediately.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:16 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Way back in the early months of the 2008 Democratic nomination battle, the online hive of liberal wonkery was abuzz with controversy.

The health care plans announced by the Clinton and (especially) Obama campaigns had come under fire for being short on specifics and vague about key issues. The controversy was dominating the campaign news cycle, and now liberal pundits were split.

One side (including Paul Krugman and the New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn) saw the sparse details and general vagueness of Obama’s proposals (and, to a lesser extent, Clinton’s) as a serious problem that reflected poorly on the candidates.

But one prominent wonk demurred — Matt Yglesias:
Implicit in the pro-details side of things seems to be a kind of mandate literalism about the American legislative process. The idea is that if a candidate has a proposal on the table, runs on the proposal, gets attacked on the proposal, and then wins the election anyway that this makes it much more likely that congress will actually pass the proposal.

That makes a ton of logical sense. But is it historically accurate?

Meet the New Harry and Louise: Vox’s attack on Bernie Sanders is sold as a policy critique. It’s actually a dishonest exercise in managing the Democratic Party base.

posted by kyp at 11:17 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Already we have the narrative going out that Clinton has "bought"the election, and nobody but Wall Street could possibly vote for her

Despite the fact that she's gotten around a full 50% more votes than Sanders. But those are the moneyed elites... you know, poor black folks and so on.
posted by Justinian at 11:22 AM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


re: Bernie raising taxes: remember that the Ds nominated a decorated war-hero and by election he was the chablis-sippin', brie-eatin' wimp while the R nominee, who spent the war on a bender, was the real hero.

The Rs will absolutely destroy Sanders.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 11:24 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


In case you haven't noticed, chief, Turd Blossom ain't callin' the shots at the Republican HQ anymore.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:26 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


The Rs will absolutely destroy Sanders.

Everyone said that about Obama, too. Besides, they will equally 'destroy' Clinton - we haven't even begun to talk about her time at State beyond Benghazi, the disaster in Libya, the Clinton Foundation, or whatever Bill has been up to for the last 8 years.
posted by dialetheia at 11:26 AM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


That being said I think we can achieve universal coverage without necessarily going to a single-payer model.

We can get everyone insured, which sounds great as a political accomplishment, but is worthless unless the coverage is actually good. Let's stop writing "filet mignon" on a six-piece chicken nugget holster from Wendy's and pretending that makes chicken nuggets filet mignon.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:27 AM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


The difference between now and 2004 as far as the media's ability to shape the character narrative of the two candidates (and the very idea of what the "center" of the country) is HUGE, and either Sanders and Clinton would have people smarter than the folks running Kerry's operation back then to navigate it. The Republicans are not the "fall in line behind the narrative" party they were in 2004 (they weren't in '08 or '12 either)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:28 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I dunno. Speaking as someone who wants Clinton to win the primary, I think the R field is bad enough that Sanders would have a good shot against any of them even with all the Castro-loving commie shit they'd throw at him.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:28 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


I do not understand the super narrow focus on the details of his health care plan

Because right now he doesn't actually have a plan. He has a summary on his website, and those of us who are interested in learning more are left to speculate. When he hits the general and posts a full-fledged plan, we'll be able to discuss it. Until then, chatting about what a good plan would and wouldn't include is not a reason for people to go on the attack.

I spent a lot of time explaining why I feel the details matter upthread. Don't really see a need to retype that here. But yeah, they absolutely matter. I've been the person they affected.

when Clinton barely has one at all

Which I quite clearly acknowledged. And now I'm done with that, because I want to focus on what a true revision to health care that covers the uninsured requires.

Dialatheia, I truly like and respect you. I appreciate that you are thoughtful in your responses. But it would be nice, for once, to discuss Sanders' policies (especially since other people are bringing them up in dumb, inaccurate ways,) without having the immediate defensive reaction be "BUT CLINTON." Clinton isn't writing Sanders' policies. She's not on his staff. And talking about his plans doesn't require that she be brought in as a comparison every single time, because it obfuscates the details. If you want someone like me, who is not sold on Sanders as a viable national candidate, to take his ideas and policy proposals seriously then they truly need to be able to stand on their own.

I set my bar higher than "well, the summary sounds good" because after several Presidential elections, "sounds good" is pie-in-the-sky without actual concrete details. So yes, I'd like to see how certain things will be handled. And yes, I think how those details are handled make a huge difference. And there's nothing wrong with discussing them, either. I also don't think it's too much to point out that mikelieman is wrong about something, and that it's shitty to imply that people are somehow not being "honest" if they note that.
posted by zarq at 11:28 AM on March 15, 2016 [21 favorites]


I think at this point all four frontrunners (Clinton and Sanders, Trump and Cruz) are equally destroyable. The lesser GOP establishment runner-ups are also destroyable, just in boringer ways.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:29 AM on March 15, 2016


We don't even know what the talking points are about Bernie yet, because he's totally unvetted. I really hope there aren't any massive skeletons in his closet, but we really wouldn't know if there were, because the Vermont press agreed with him that everything but his policy stances was off-limits. I have no idea if the Republicans will dig up anything that will stick. I certainly hope not, but a lot of sixties radicals said things that would now seem profoundly regrettable.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:31 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


If Sanders were to somehow get the nom, while Trump doesn't, maybe there will be an accelerationist meme among some Republicans to "Bern it all down" by voting in a socialist for president in the hopes that things would get so bad that the inevitable counterrevolution would throw him and the Democratic Party out, and smash the federal octopus.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:32 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I choose to give up Health Insurance Companies, and as a trade-off, we use the money saved on overhead for patient care.

Seriously. The largest insurers in the country are skimming, on average, somewhere between 7-10% of premiums paid off as profit, while paying top executives 8-figure salaries. Meanwhile, every health care provider in the country has staff dedicated to dealing with the 4,683 different arcane insurance rules they have to follow if you want your doctor to be paid. The moment you go single-payer, you cut costs by tens of billions of dollars, by definition. This tends to get painted as "the health care business will go belly-up and that would be AWFUL for the economy," but we somehow managed to survive the decline of the buggy-whip industry, y'know?
posted by Mayor West at 11:33 AM on March 15, 2016 [23 favorites]


Let's stop writing "filet mignon" on a six-piece chicken nugget holster from Wendy's

It's been a while but aren't Wendy's nuggets 5 pieces?
posted by mikelieman at 11:34 AM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Nah, the grownup contingent of the Republican party has investments and will throw everything they have behind a not-Trump candidate.

I think the worst matchup for Dems would probably be Sanders v Kasich, but that's also probably one of the most unlikely ones, so.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:35 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


If it's Sanders vs. Trump, Trump will try to goad Sanders and Sanders' supporters into a lot more nasty confrontations. Sanders can try to keep it about issues, but Trump will try to create a false narrative that Sanders' supporters are reckless, chaotic, and seek to weaken America.
posted by FJT at 11:37 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


they might just cooperate with the Democrats if the later try to impeach him

Why are they all so coy about supporting his nomination, though, that's the thing that gets me. Seems easy enough for the Republican elite to sabotage his campaign well before he can get elected, by simply picking someone else to run against him and Hillary. They would lose the presidency but avoid going through the embarrassment of impeaching a fellow Republican. And they can focus their energies on impeaching Hillary, once she is coronated. If they don't like Trump, it's a problem they can solve, if they can put the republic ahead of winning at any cost.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:37 AM on March 15, 2016


Chicken nugget holster?
posted by ian1977 at 11:38 AM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Marco Rubio Communications Director Alex Conant: "Rubio supporters in Ohio should vote for John Kasich."


It's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see how it pays off.
posted by Cookiebastard at 11:38 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


How much effort is the RNC going to even put into the general once Trump is their candidate?
posted by beerperson at 11:40 AM on March 15, 2016


If it's Sanders vs. Trump, Trump will try to goad Sanders and Sanders' supporters into a lot more nasty confrontations.

That will happen regardless as long as Trump is the nominee, though. The protest included a lot of Sanders supporters, but the Chicago and St. Louis protests were organized by students and Black Lives Matter organizers, not Sanders. MoveOn lent support but didn't organize the event. Expecting people of color to sit on the sidelines and not protest when such violent rhetoric is being thrown around is just not realistic. There will be protests regardless of who the nominee is, and the Republicans will try to pin that on any Democratic candidate.
posted by dialetheia at 11:40 AM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


If they don't like Trump, it's a problem they can solve, if they can put the republic ahead of winning at any cost.

ding ding ding we have a winner.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:40 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]




entropicamericana I really really hope you are right that the absence of Karl Rove means that the Republican oppo research machine will be ineffective. But I'm fairly confident that you are staggeringly wrong - and also that Bernie is a target that they would love love love to get their hands on.

It's true that their efforts against Obama (Rev. Wrights, Ayers) didn't stick - but then Obama is a more compelling candidate than either Sanders or Clinton, and he also had 8 years of Bush fatigue helping him out.

Also - they HAVE begun to talk about Hillary's issues. Remember her 10+ hour performance in the Benghazi hearings last fall? By all accounts she kicked ass while making the Senate Republicans look like the school children that they are. For reasons discussed at length in other threads, she has a lot of experience playing punching bag for the right. That is an asset.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 11:41 AM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Any person desiring to vote at a primary shall state his name, residence and party affiliation to the primary judges, one of whom shall thereupon announce the same in a distinct tone of voice, sufficiently loud to be heard by all persons in the polling place.

Yup, they called out my affiliation this morning, so all four workers and one other person voting at the time know I voted democratic.
posted by Windigo at 11:42 AM on March 15, 2016




It's probably telling that Trump is fixated on Sanders supporters. Who does he see as the bigger threat?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:43 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]



Here’s What [some] Trump Supporters Believe Will Happen If He Doesn’t Win

#12 seems pretty excited about his perceived prospects.
posted by Windigo at 11:44 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yo, I just want to say that if you don't know what a chicken nugget holster is, your employer is probably paying for your health insurance.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:44 AM on March 15, 2016 [20 favorites]


By all accounts she kicked ass while making the Senate Republicans look like the school children that they are.

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that. She was great! That definitely makes me feel less anxious about the Clinton-Trump debates.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:44 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's probably telling that Trump is fixated on Sanders supporters. Who does he see as the bigger threat?

Trump plays an anti-Establishment candidate on TV.

Sanders IS an anti-Establishment candidate.

I can easily see a lot of people who support Trump as an alternative to supporting the Establishment GOP candidates, getting a good look at Sanders' fiscally responsible policies, and crossing the aisle to vote for him.
posted by mikelieman at 11:46 AM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump is fixated on Sanders supporters. Who does he see as the bigger threat?

I mean, I do think that Sen. Sanders is the stronger candidate against Trump but I don't think that Trump is a particularly savvy political prognosticator. That is to say, I wouldn't use his perception as insight into anything beyond the horrifying world of the interior of his brain.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:47 AM on March 15, 2016


Here’s What [some] Trump Supporters Believe Will Happen If He Doesn’t Win

at least #14 had the presence of mind to hide his face
posted by burgerrr at 11:48 AM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


Brandon Stanton of @humansofny, who condemned @realDonaldTrump online, says it's time for influencers to be vocal.

Brandon takes some great photos and tells some great stories, but anyone who uses the word "influencer" without the slightest bit of self-awareness is part of the damn problem.
posted by My Dad at 11:49 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]




Yo, I just want to say that if you don't know what a chicken nugget holster is, your employer is probably paying for your health insurance.

I mean, I thought that nuggets came in a box with dipping sauce, but clearly the country has moved forwards on this issue.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:50 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I literally gasped at #14. I hope to god that was trolling.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:50 AM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I used to take him and his sister with me to vote when they were little ....They'd get stickers, too, and it was fun.

Thanks to all the parents who do this! Because the American education system certainly isn't useful in this regard. My politically active children talk of friends who came into this election cycle without a clue as to the importance of primaries and essentially thought it all came down to whoever was left standing when the conventions happened-with no idea as to how the primaries played into determining who would be left standing at the conventions.
posted by beaning at 11:52 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean, I thought that nuggets came in a box with dipping sauce, but clearly the country has moved forwards on this issue.

Mileage varies. That was a product of a more affluent time, generally, since the additional packaging adds costs, compared to the cardboard pouch, which is already in stock in various sizes, and just needs print runs with artwork.

( Full Disclosure: I spent a few years during the 80's with McDonald's thinking about these things. )
posted by mikelieman at 11:56 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I feel like #21 is a chill guy who has a good sense of perspective. Maybe I'm just being optimistic, though.
posted by selfnoise at 11:57 AM on March 15, 2016


There will be protests regardless of who the nominee is, and the Republicans will try to pin that on any Democratic candidate.

I don't think it will stick quite as hard though. There's a reason why Trump is hitting Sanders on the protest thing and not Clinton. Simply because it's an easier sell. It's not true at all, but it's an easier sell:

1) Sanders talks about "revolution" a lot
2) Sanders is a socialist
3) Sanders loves countries like Nicaragua and Cuba that have and revolutions
4) Sanders has the support of unpredictable youths and unemployed folks who have all the time to enact revolution

Clinton's boring Establishment, she's not a revolutionary at all.
posted by FJT at 11:57 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


During last year's general election, one of my friends posted on FB that his polling place was out of I Ohio Voting stickers, so he didn't get one. I'm glad I've never had to face such a tragedy.
posted by kevinbelt at 11:57 AM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


( Subsequently, I did time doing arcane things in the QA lab of a major international sandpaper manufacturer, which is neither sand, nor paper. )
posted by mikelieman at 11:58 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here’s What [some] Trump Supporters Believe Will Happen If He Doesn’t Win

That's a whole lotta white people.

Also, WTF #14.
posted by zarq at 11:58 AM on March 15, 2016


Chicken nugget holster?

Yes, thanks to open carry states
posted by klarck at 11:59 AM on March 15, 2016 [19 favorites]


Trump supporters, I believe, think themselves revolutionary. Shit, they're pretty much the same crowd that took over the wildlife preserve in Oregon .
posted by mikelieman at 11:59 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh my gosh, those fucking stickers. People talk about the stickers all the time when they mention why they don't want to vote early. They will give you a damn sticker if you do in-person early voting, and you can hold on to it and wear it on election day. We seriously thought about making our own stickers for people who filled out mail-in ballots, just so we had an answer to the objection.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:00 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I mean this is America, we're all supposed to be about revolution. And the difference between counterrevolutions and revolutions are usually just the intended goals, not the tactics used or the people waging them. Just ask the Vendée and the Chouannerie.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:01 PM on March 15, 2016


God, seeing "If Hillary wins, 1 world order" on that Trump supporter's sign reminds me that the classics never go out of style no matter how much talk radio you aren't listening to anymore.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:01 PM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


in retrospect I know what a chicken holster is but I didn't know they were called holsters. I feel like my fast food career could have been so much funnier if I had.
posted by ian1977 at 12:02 PM on March 15, 2016


The X Files are back! Black helicopters!
posted by Artw at 12:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Strangely, though, the poll workers do have to call out your ballot choice loudly and publicly; supposedly it's state law(?). It appears to serve no functional purpose, because the people they're calling to shouldn't be expected to keep track of which voter is getting which ballot that way, and the paper slip with printed sticker that you bring over to them serves the purpose much more reliably anyway.

This is a transparency-motivated move in service of theoretical poll watchers. Also from Chicago's law, in (10 ILCS 5/7-34) (from Ch. 46, par. 7-34) :
Pollwatchers shall be permitted to observe all proceedings and view all reasonably requested records relating to the conduct of the election, provided the secrecy of the ballot is not impinged, and to station themselves in a position in the voting room as will enable them to observe the judges making the signature comparison between the voter application and the voter registration record card; provided, however, that such pollwatchers shall not be permitted to station themselves in such close proximity to the judges of election so as to interfere with the orderly conduct of the election and shall not, in any event, be permitted to handle election materials. Pollwatchers may challenge for cause the voting qualifications of a person offering to vote and may call to the attention of the judges of election any incorrect procedure or apparent violations of this Code.
So the functional purpose is to give these folks enough information to look at their own materials. Sometimes that's for challenges, more often (in my observation anyway) it's about them looking at their list of likely voters and deciding who they might want to call and goad or offer a ride to.

Yeah, it's sorta dopey when there's nobody there to hear it. But from a pollworker training standpoint you want to try to get them to just be consistent in their behavior so they're always in compliance. Poll watchers often come and go or just do part of the day.
posted by phearlez at 12:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


melissasaurus: Here’s What [some] Trump Supporters Believe Will Happen If He Doesn’t Win (Buzzfeed)

#8 - Buzzfeed thought: "If Hillary Wins / 1 World Order" really? We're not even typing that one up (OK, they skipped a few others, so it looks like a hasty bit of work)

I'm not sure if that was part of BuzzFeed's 'K-File' cadre of Four 20-Somethings, aka the BuzzFeed Buzzsaw that campaigns should fear (good job BuzzFeedifying the title, NPR!)
posted by filthy light thief at 12:05 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


zarq: That's a whole lotta white people.

You're surprised that Trump rallies aren't more diverse? He's not exactly what I'd call a "unifying" force.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


ArbitraryAndCapricious: "Oh my gosh, those fucking stickers. People talk about the stickers all the time when they mention why they don't want to vote early. They will give you a damn sticker if you do in-person early voting, and you can hold on to it and wear it on election day. We seriously thought about making our own stickers for people who filled out mail-in ballots, just so we had an answer to the objection."

I've been voting in person forever and I can't remember ever getting a sticker.
posted by octothorpe at 12:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've been voting in person forever and I can't remember ever getting a sticker.
In Illinois we used to get pins!
posted by Max Power at 12:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


And onions for your belt? (Sorry, knee-jerk Simpsons reference.)
posted by filthy light thief at 12:08 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've been voting in person forever and I can't remember ever getting a sticker.
In Illinois we used to get pins!


I'm assuming y'all stopped because most people didn't have room on their lapel for more than three.

OR!

But you can't fasten a pin to a headstone
posted by phearlez at 12:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


#8 - Buzzfeed thought: "If Hillary Wins / 1 World Order" really? We're not even typing that one up

"Our entire business model is based on a huge quantity of traffic to our sites, but we don't need the hassle of showing up in those search results."
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I didn't know they were called holsters

In technical terms, it's a 'box'
posted by mikelieman at 12:10 PM on March 15, 2016


melissasaurus: "Here’s What [some] Trump Supporters Believe Will Happen If He Doesn’t Win"

So sad to see obviously blue color people so mad about a $15 minimum wage.
posted by octothorpe at 12:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


My "I {Ohio/severed chicken head} voting" sticker fell off sometime between meetings and now I feel very sad.
posted by mostly vowels at 12:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


My read on Trump is that as long as he's in circumstances that basically resemble a TV show, he's fine, but once he's outside the safety of a highly stage managed environment, he quickly loses his cool. I think this has worked for him so far because the rest of the GOP field has basically been reality TV show contestants, in that their responses have been narrowly constrained and relatively predictable, and Trump has a lot of experience with this and can handle it. It's his show, effectively, and he's done that for years. What remains to be seen is how this will play out against an opponent who isn't thrown off by his approach, because one thing both Clinton and Sanders have in common is a long track record of dealing with exactly this type of blowhard. Is he going to have a series of increasingly insane scenes at tightly controlled rallies while simultaneously drowning in bravado and nonsense during debates he will quickly bail on? I don't know. I don't think it's impossible that Trump might adapt, but I think it's a tall order to learn patience overnight. Just imagine Trump in Clinton's place during the Benghazi hearings, he'd melt down. I don't know, maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part to think this even matters, but part of me has the same feeling I did in 2012 where the media hyped a tight race that ultimately failed to materialize.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump is making his volunteers sign a pledge saying they'll "prevent" their employees from volunteering for another candidate's campaign and that they agree that he can sue them if they "disparage" him or his family members or his companies.

It's a sign of how bad this election is that, at this point, I'm actually wishing he'd go back to talking about his penis.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


In Illinois we used to get pins!

OMG, when did that stop?!?

Sadly, if there was swag for voting I bet voter turnout would skyrocket. If you got a t-shirt at the poll? Probably 75% participation. I'm tempted to start a SUPER PAC....
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


That's the worst thing about caucusing: no stickers*.

*That's a lie - the worst thing about caucusing is actually everything about caucusing
posted by dinty_moore at 12:13 PM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


So sad to see obviously blue color people so mad about a $15 minimum wage.

You'd be mad about a $15/hr min wage if you were making $15/hr right now.
posted by klarck at 12:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sadly, if there was swag for voting I bet voter turnout would skyrocket.

It should match whatever's in that year's Oscars gift bag.
posted by beerperson at 12:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sorry, not necessarily "you".
posted by klarck at 12:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


So sad to see obviously blue color people so mad about a $15 minimum wage.

And head-desk-thumping (is that a thing we can say?) to know these are the same people who are wound the hell up about immigration. How much do you think that tomato is going to cost if they have to pay people wages legal immigrants & citizens will demand for the job, jerky?
posted by phearlez at 12:16 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Experts say Sanders’ plan might decimate the health-insurance industry...

Experts say that like it's a bad thing. I hope we can also decimate the anonymous expert industry.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:16 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Also LOL at the use of "tariffs" in #17. Don't tread on me! Wahhhh!

tariffs and protectionism are actually cool and good things to support imo
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:17 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Kill the fucking F35, and BOTH the Buger-Flipper and the Solder get a fucking living wage.

I expect that would happen on the first day of Bernie Sanders' appointee to Sec. Defense's service
posted by mikelieman at 12:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Nugget Holster is my new band name.
posted by uosuaq at 12:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sec. Defense Alan Grayson, IMNSHO...
posted by mikelieman at 12:20 PM on March 15, 2016


A BURGER-FLIPPER or OUR TROOPS

Oh god, that meme. I see it like weekly from my aunt's sister.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:21 PM on March 15, 2016


Nugget Holster is my new band name.

I think the Speedo company has it trademarked already :(
posted by mikelieman at 12:21 PM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


Shit, they're pretty much the same crowd that took over the wildlife preserve in Oregon .

I'd guess that the leadership of that operation were probably Cruz voters, although some of the rowdy followers (like the people who wouldn't leave toward the end) are probably Trump voters. As vaunted electoral wizard Carl Diggler put it, "Gold standard-loving mountain folk of Idaho want a candidate they can shoot down an ATF helicopter with. That's Cruz."

Re: protesters, I really liked this video contrasting the way Trump responds to protesters to the way Obama responded. It really makes Trump look like the weak bully that he is.

So sad to see obviously blue color people so mad about a $15 minimum wage.

It got buried at the end of the last thread, but bardophile linked to a great piece making the argument that Trump's supporters are actually less blue-collar than we would expect: Misrepresenting the white working class: what the narrating class gets wrong: "Take the assumed popularity of Trump among the white working class, for example. There appears to be supporting evidence for that. According to Brookings, for example, in a national survey 55% of “Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who support Trump are white working-class Americans.” But this does not mean what Brookings thinks it means. Among all adult whites, nearly 70% do not have bachelor’s degrees (the definition of “working class” used here). This means that at 55%, the white working-class is under-represented among Trump supporters. Conversely, unless Trump is getting much more minority support than reported, his supporters are disproportionally college-educated whites. They make up 30% of the white population, but they are at least 40% of Trump voters in the Brookings survey."

On another note, I really enjoyed this podcast interview with Rutgers history professor Donna Murch about Sanders' appeal within the Black community: how Bernie Sanders has built a multi-racial anti-austerity campaign (there's a transcript too). Some people have finally started calling out the erasure of people of color who support Sanders, and I thought she had a lot of great insight into the kind of support he has been able to build in Black communities. I've been really disappointed to see people act like his only supporters are white men - it's quite disrespectful to his supporters who are women and people of color.
posted by dialetheia at 12:22 PM on March 15, 2016 [29 favorites]



That's not really a trade-off, but since there's no downside to getting ride of the heath insurance companies, you don't have any trade-offs...


Well, somewhere between 400k and 2.5 million people work in the insurance industry. It's a pretty big deal to get rid of major industry, even if it's one that doesn't seem to work well. If one of the good things about single-payer is increased efficiency (and it is), it's not clear where all of those people will go or what they will do.
posted by OmieWise at 12:22 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


so I just saw a pickup truck (in downtown Oakland) with a bumper sticker reading:
Bernie: Because Fuck this Shit
which like on the one hand I'm in such a bubble and basically don't have any first-hand clue whatsoever about how middle America thinks, but on the other hand even outside the west coast cities bubble there's a lot of "because fuck this shit" sentiment.

this is the chief point of overlap, as I see it, between Trump supporters and (some) Sanders supporters.

Anyway, I guess my point is that I halfway think that a Republican campaign built around presenting Sanders as a Scary Dangerous Castro-loving Commie might backfire. Not because America has any particular love for Castro or communism, but just because of our newfound tendency as a nation to support nearly anything that our governing institutions/media institutions oppose.

still think Clinton's going to get the nomination, still think that Trumpism is more popular than socialism, still utterly terrified about what America might become after this election.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:23 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


blue color people

Wow, two Arrested Development references already today.
posted by FJT at 12:23 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


...Obama is a more compelling candidate than either Sanders or Clinton...

???

To many (most?) Sanders supporters, Sanders is basically the most compelling candidate since FDR. Obama's main appeal was (a) not being Bush, (b) cool! a black President, and (c) not being Hillary Clinton. I supported him while also expecting him not to be the progressive that some people were saying he was.

I donated $35 total to Obama's campaign... in the general. I didn't even vote in the primary in 2008. I voted for Jill Stein in the general in 2012.

I've donated over $500 to Sanders' campaign so far (my spouse says I need to stop) and we went to his rally on Sunday and I've been looking forward to the Missouri primary since approximately September of last year.
posted by Foosnark at 12:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [19 favorites]


You'd be mad about a $15/hr min wage if you were making $15/hr right now.

I make $17/hr and I'm not mad about a $15 minimum. Why would I be?
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


I know. Bernie is milking me dry! And I still don't have those bumper stickers!!!!!!!
posted by ian1977 at 12:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


This chart of the healthcare sector SPDR is a great proxy for why there is going to be a huge fight over healthcare if any significant changes are proposed. That particular fund is worth ~$12 billion and if you add up all of the similar ones the amount quickly jumps higher. For some, basic physical wellness is at stake, for others, fortunes exist to be made or preserved. I'm definitely not arguing for the status quo or whatever, but this is the situation.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah presumably people that are making $15 now will likely overall get a raise if the minimum wage is set at $15. Its not like it would turn a currently NOT minimum wage job into a minimum wage job. Employer would have to pay more to remain competitive.
posted by ian1977 at 12:26 PM on March 15, 2016


You'd be mad if about a $15/hr min wage if you were making $15/hr right now.

My brother-in-law keeps griping about the idea of a $15 minimum wage. He's in a line of work that requires some skill and training, but not college, and it took him a long time working up the ranks to make much more than $15 an hour. So he rants "why should a teenager flipping burgers make the same thing starting out that I did after 10 years of hard work! I'll just quit and take an easy fast food job!"

So I say "1) Isn't it a great thing that you'd be able to take literally any job out there without losing much money? If you think fast food would be easier and more fun, go for it! 2) Don't you think that when your employer sees that everyone on his staff can leave at any moment for the same money, he'll have to raise wages to keep good workers?" Somehow, the BIL is not happy about either of these things. It doesn't matter that his situation will improve; all that he sees is that some "less worthy" person will have it easier than he did, and that's what rankles.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [50 favorites]


Does anyone feel like a Trump vs Whoever battle isn't so much a battle of progressivism vs conservatism but a battle for the country's soul? I know if Mittens was elected he would open the floodgates for him and his billionaire buddies to further loot the country but at least he'd still be polite and use euphemisms for dog whistles.

This feels like the dog whistles are over and pretty soon the over racism at large will begin.
posted by Talez at 12:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


the kind of support he has been able to build in Black communities

I cultivate my echo chamber, but damn I'm following some cool black women lately. They really bring the rhetoric.
posted by Trochanter at 12:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


You're surprised that Trump rallies aren't more diverse? He's not exactly what I'd call a "unifying" force.

Just noting that his attempt to unite all the pale shades under one banner is clearly working.
posted by zarq at 12:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, whether you're an urban racist xenophobe, or a rural racist xenophobe, or even a suburban racist xenophobe, ITS A BIG TENT
posted by ian1977 at 12:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


To many (most?) Sanders supporters, Sanders is basically the most compelling candidate since FDR.

Yes, it makes sense that Sanders supporters would find Sanders more compelling. But I thought Obama is more compelling. And to be honest, Sanders leaves me a little cold.

And back in the day, there was a very big amount of hype about Obama. I remember his two books were best sellers, the press loved him, and will.i.am did a song about his campaign. It was insane in some ways when I think back on it.
posted by FJT at 12:32 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's a pretty big deal to get rid of major industry, even if it's one that doesn't seem to work well.

It would be a huge dislocation, to be sure. I imagine that there would be programs put in place to reeducate* retrain us and so on. I'd much rather see people get the services they need more efficiently than have a job as a gatekeeper, though (and I'm lucky in that my job actually is to help people get through the system, as opposed to increasing my employer's profit margin. Shudder. That's soul-killing work.

*the communism emerges!
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Does anyone feel like a Trump vs Whoever battle isn't so much a battle of progressivism vs conservatism but a battle for the country's soul

If we elected Trump? Holy cats, I could never show my face in another country. We'd be the complete laughing stock of the entire planet.
posted by ian1977 at 12:33 PM on March 15, 2016


Why is it always teenagers flipping burgers the go to, like every fast food place I visit is mostly people over 35 behind the counter?
posted by The Whelk at 12:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [35 favorites]


???

To many (most?) Sanders supporters, Sanders is basically the most compelling candidate since FDR. Obama's main appeal was (a) not being Bush, (b) cool! a black President, and (c) not being Hillary Clinton. I supported him while also expecting him not to be the progressive that some people were saying he was.


This is kind of revisionist history, I think possibly colored by how people feel let down by Obama. Obama in 2008 was a phenomenon. He was like a rock star at his events. His supporters were every bit as fervent and motivated then as the Sanders people are now.

I'm not sure who is more compelling, but it's just blatantly false that the only reason people voted for him were the three you give. People really, really believed in him and what he was saying in '08. In fact,the reasons you give were exactly the spin the Republicans gave after he won: he was just some black guy who won because of his race.

We ran a "not-Bush" in '04. Didn't go so well
posted by Sangermaine at 12:34 PM on March 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


So he rants "why should a teenager flipping burgers make the same thing starting out that I did after 10 years of hard work! I'll just quit and take an easy fast food job!"
For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 12:35 PM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


Just voted for Bernie in St. Louis. Team Bernie has been hard at work here- there were Bernie signs placed at the perimeter outside my polling place, and when I went home there was a Bernie doorknob hanger on my apartment door. Did not see a single sign for any other candidate.

In the past few months I've seen cars with mostly Bernie stickers, a couple Trumps, and one Carson. oh, and one car that I walk by daily that has both Hillary and Bernie.

There were two other people voting at the same time - the woman with a baby in front of me was not on The List and had to go to the Other Table to figure it out. Might've been an ID thing.

The polling worker who set up the machine for me was super nice and excited about the process and was telling me how the machines had to be turned off for 30 days after the election so the vote we have in April will be all paper ballots.

I wore my sticker to the store and the cashier was like "Oh I forgot that's today!" so I may have inspired one person to go vote.
posted by ghostbikes at 12:35 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Two thoughts.

1) I have some Trumpist friends. I've heard "Make America Great Again" a number of times. I've taken to asking them to name the last five American history books they have read. If silence were golden, I'd be getting rich.

2) Pet peeve: I'm so sick and tired of Democrats being passive and defensive (and in some cases shaping their responses) when it comes to what the other party might think or do. To hell with them. Who says they get to dictate the narrative? Dems need to positively and aggressively recapture both political dialogue and policy debates in this country. Call 'em like you see 'em. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
posted by CincyBlues at 12:36 PM on March 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


> It doesn't matter that his situation will improve; all that he sees is that some "less worthy" person will have it easier than he did, and that's what rankles.

This is almost the definition of the politics of resentment, isn't it?
posted by benito.strauss at 12:36 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


People thought Obama would be the new JFK, and then forgot that JFK wasn't actually all that progressive.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:36 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


We ran a "not-Bush" in '04. Didn't go so well

To be fair, we also tried to run a compelling candidate, but then he screamed that one time.
posted by dinty_moore at 12:36 PM on March 15, 2016 [32 favorites]


Why is it always teenagers flipping burgers the go to, like every fast food place I visit is mostly people over 35 behind the counter?

Exactly. Low-wage workers are older than you think: "88% of workers that would benefit from a minimum wage increase are older than 20, 1/3 are over 40."
posted by dialetheia at 12:37 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


"This Jesus guy. Not fair to hardworking Americans. Weak. #MakeAmericaGreatAgain"
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


like every fast food place I visit is mostly people over 35 behind the counter?

Somewhere out there, Kevin Smith is saying, "See, see! Clerks II was just ahead of it's time!"
posted by FJT at 12:38 PM on March 15, 2016


but then he screamed that one time.

And then he sold out and became a turncoat lobbyist.
posted by Justinian at 12:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Why is it always teenagers flipping burgers the go to, like every fast food place I visit is
mostly people over 35 behind the counter?


Because in the conservative belief system, fast food jobs are the first steps for kids into the real world of Self-Sufficient Hard Work. Anyone older than a teen doing those jobs is obviously a lazy moron who needs a good dose of bootstraps, not a handout.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:39 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


We'd be the complete laughingstock of the entire planet.

Eight years of Bush sort of turned that into the new normal. Even with Obama in charge, Tea Party shenanigans and Palin in the news kept on making us look goofy.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:40 PM on March 15, 2016


wore my sticker to the store and the cashier was like "Oh I forgot that's today!"

I know most Americans aren't nearly as politics-crazy as us, but AHH WTF really?
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I dunno. Bush will look like an elder statesman compared to Trump I think.
posted by ian1977 at 12:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


It would be a huge dislocation, to be sure. I imagine that there would be programs put in place to reeducate* retrain us and so on. I'd much rather see people get the services they need more efficiently than have a job as a gatekeeper, though (and I'm lucky in that my job actually is to help people get through the system, as opposed to increasing my employer's profit margin. Shudder. That's soul-killing work.

Well, sure, but this is once again talking past each other. I'm not saying (and I don't see others in this thread saying) that we should preserve the insurance companies. The Post was saying, and I'm saying, that just looking at the "Positive" side of the ledger does not a plan make, especially if there are big "Negative"s that have not yet been accounted for.

It's frankly weird to both want to point out the damage done by trade deals and basically shrug or change the subject when it comes to people who stand to lose their jobs under a major health insurance reorganization.
posted by OmieWise at 12:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


I mean, it's a lotta people!
posted by OmieWise at 12:41 PM on March 15, 2016


Trump supporters, I believe, think themselves revolutionary. Shit, they're pretty much the same crowd that took over the wildlife preserve in Oregon .

exactly zero of the mormons i know, including the incredibly radical/devout ones, support trump. if anything, they're "anybody besides trump, except hillary because she's a missing member of a 1/3 of the host of heaven."
posted by nadawi at 12:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]




It's frankly weird to both want to point out the damage done by trade deals and basically shrug or change the subject when it comes to people who stand to lose their jobs under a major health insurance reorganization.

Why wouldn't many of those jobs just become government jobs doing many of the same things within a better system? Besides, single-payer wouldn't put all health insurance companies out of business - even in countries with national systems like the NHS, there is still a substantial market for private insurance to cover extra benefits beyond the baseline provided by the public system.
posted by dialetheia at 12:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah presumably people that are making $15 now will likely overall get a raise if the minimum wage is set at $15.

Not necessarily, and probably not right away for a lot of people. I landed a job in college that paid a bit more than minimum wage in MI, and had minimal pay raises annually. When the minimum wage got bumped up to about what I made, I had no corresponding bump up in pay. I wasn't too upset, but my coworker was livid that newbies now made as much as her. I pointed out that it's not the law's fault our employer doesn't value our experience more than $X per hour.

I think it was easier to be angry at the law than the job you were stuck in because the economy sucked, a job that didn't value your experience because you're just an easily replaceable body (ha! I had customers asking after me for years after I left because I got shit done, but it obviously didn't impact the bottom line because they're still a minimum wage job now).
posted by ghost phoneme at 12:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


we stereotype "burger flippers" as teenagers (and often teen boys) because it helps hide that it's a majority adult women trying to support their families. it's also why we stereotype abortion seekers as 22 year old irresponsible "girls" rather than adult women who have or will have children.
posted by nadawi at 12:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [40 favorites]


Bernie's rage against the machine: "Sanders’s candidacy has beaten back elite, establishment corporate centrism, offering his party a viable progressive alternative. That’s why he has already won."
posted by dialetheia at 12:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


People really, really believed in him and what he was saying in '08.

And places like the now-defunct Digg were full of critiques of his messaging--they were almost completely "inspirational" pieces that almost studiously avoided hard positions. Lots of people brought it up. I saw those Hope and Change commercials on TV and was hit by how anyone could choose to believe anything they wanted about their core message. A lot of it boiled down to "Good things, not bad things." In fact it pushed me away from the Democrats in that race (I consider myself a mostly liberal independent.)
posted by Phyltre at 12:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's frankly weird to both want to point out the damage done by trade deals and basically shrug or change the subject when it comes to people who stand to lose their jobs under a major health insurance reorganization.

And just to be clear about what I'm saying: the progressive argument for trade deals is that they substantially raise the standard of living among the world's poorest people. They are not perfect in doing this, for all kinds of design reasons, but as much as it sucks to be poor in America, most poor people in America have a much higher standard of living than most of the world's poor.

I bring this up because while I am not a supporter of the trade deals we have, I think that the conversation about them is fairly American centric on the Left. So when you talk about the benefits to be had by something like doing away with the insurance industry because of what that would represent in terms of people having insurance, I think it's also important to note that the rhetoric about trade deals focuses too heavily on who has gotten screwed by them in America.
posted by OmieWise at 12:46 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


I saw those Hope and Change commercials on TV and was hit by how anyone could choose to believe anything they wanted about their core message.

Yeah, someone on Metafilter a few months ago suggested that Obama did too promise huge progressive change since his campaign slogan was HOPE. I wondered how the two things were necessarily related.
posted by OmieWise at 12:48 PM on March 15, 2016


oh thank god we finally have a thread to litigate Obama's 2008 campaign promises
posted by beerperson at 12:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [33 favorites]


If we elected Trump? Holy cats, I could never show my face in another country. We'd be the complete laughing stock of the entire planet.

Eh, it would probably be a moot point, since most of the civilized world would close its borders to us immediately. There's a reason Trump thinks Mexico is going to pay for that wall.
posted by Mayor West at 12:49 PM on March 15, 2016


Why wouldn't many of those jobs just become government jobs doing many of the same things within a better system? Besides, single-payer wouldn't put all health insurance companies out of business - even in countries with national systems like the NHS, there is still a substantial market for private insurance to cover extra benefits beyond the baseline provided by the public system.

It sounds like you are asking for exactly what I am asking for: a plan that shows this is workable without simply disrupting the economy and introducing unintended harms.
posted by OmieWise at 12:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why wouldn't many of those jobs just become government jobs doing many of the same things within a better system?

Commission? Lots of sales folks all over the industry. Plus some of those hired merely to deny claims would be hard pressed to find a niche.

There would still be a private health insurance industry, just more exclusive.
posted by Max Power at 12:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's frankly weird to both want to point out the damage done by trade deals and basically shrug or change the subject when it comes to people who stand to lose their jobs under a major health insurance reorganization.

Why wouldn't many of those jobs just become government jobs doing many of the same things within a better system?
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of operating expenditures. Defenders of the insurance industry estimate administrative costs as 17 percent of revenue.
A lot of that extra 15 percent is labor cost, and it wouldn't all be absorbed into a Medicare-equivalent single-payer system.
posted by Etrigan at 12:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


"still utterly terrified about what America might become after this election."

Assuming Trump does not become POTUS, I am actually heartened by this election cycle. For once, in my lifetime, candidates that are not part of the party establishment, who are not following tightly focus-grouped "messaging" narratives are doing well. It could open the process to even better (and admittedly worse) folks throwing their hats in the ring in future cycles.
posted by jetsetsc at 12:52 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]




I think there are two issues with the disruption that would be caused by the transition to single-payer: the actual issue and then the politics of it. It's clear that the transition would cause problems for some people, and ideally we would find a way to manage that pain, because it's the right thing to do. But the system isn't working now, and I think you could argue that the disruption would be worth it, even if some people would lose their jobs. But there's also the issue of the politics. I personally ran into a bunch of people who told me that they wouldn't vote for Obama in 2012 because they worked in healthcare and thought that the ACA was going to cost them their livelihood. I think that was totally overwrought, but they couldn't be convinced. Insurance is a pretty big industry in my state, and we're going to have to figure out things to say to concerned voters that aren't just "sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omelet, and sadly you're one of the eggs."

Having said that, people who work in healthcare can also have trouble paying their healthcare costs, especially if they're not at the very top of the system, and I wouldn't assume that everyone in the industry will be opposed to reform.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


oh thank god we finally have a thread to litigate Obama's 2008 campaign promises

Someone upthread said Obama didn't motivate people like Sanders. Whether or not he kept his campaign promises or whether or not Obama actually promised anything meaningful, the point is he really did move and excite people in 2008. It's wrong to say his support was a Kerry-like settling for someone because he wasn't a Republican. People really believed. Whether they should have is another issue.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


nearly every single person I've heard espousing the wish that Trump become President in order to usher in a leftist revolution... has also been a white male. Realistically speaking, we'd be the least likely people to be killed in an anti-Trump revolution.

FWIW, we're also the least likely to be killed under a Trump presidency.

yeah, there's not going to be an anti-Trump leftist revolution. The violence will be coming from the other side, and it doesn't really matter whether Trump wins or not. If he wins, they'll be encouraged. If he loses, they'll be pissed.
posted by Naberius at 12:59 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


This live-action adaptation of Brian Wood's DMZ is getting weird.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:01 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I bring this up because while I am not a supporter of the trade deals we have, I think that the conversation about them is fairly American centric on the Left. So when you talk about the benefits to be had by something like doing away with the insurance industry because of what that would represent in terms of people having insurance, I think it's also important to note that the rhetoric about trade deals focuses too heavily on who has gotten screwed by them in America.

Agreed. I don't agree with the doctrinaire ideologues on either side of the protectionism/free trade-ism debate. I'd like to see a real conversation about the tradeoffs both here and globally. I suspect I'd actually come down more in favor of free trade than Sen. Sanders does, but I also bet that he knows a hell of a lot more than I do about these issues, so maybe he's right.

I do think that there should be labor and environmental standards built into trade deals that protect the workers in developing countries and ensure that corporations aren't making money off a global race-to-the-bottom. I guess that makes me a fair-trade person? But every deal gets sold as "fair trade" / "gold standard", etc. and the damn things are so complicated that you can't really understand what the ramifications are without a doctorate in international economics (and even then, I suspect a time machine would be needed).
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:01 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: Couple of comments deleted. Election threads are terrible, I agree, but if you hate them please just skip them, rather than coming in here to just add even more negative stuff?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:02 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Does anyone know what Trump's support among the military is? I think I've read that the top brass doesn't like him, but what about the rank-and-file?
posted by Sangermaine at 1:04 PM on March 15, 2016


> If we elected Trump? Holy cats, I could never show my face in another country. We'd be the complete laughing stock of the entire planet.

This quote seems relevant here. I don't know how much laughing anyone would be doing.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:05 PM on March 15, 2016


Even Krugman is finally coming around on trade:  "The Times columnist made his name by ridiculing critics of globalization. Now he admits that “free-trade” cheerleading was mostly garbage."
posted by dialetheia at 1:05 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Does anyone know what Trump's support among the military is? I think I've read that the top brass doesn't like him, but what about the rank-and-file?

Military Times survey: Troops back Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders for president
posted by dialetheia at 1:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


One way you could manage the disruption of the private health care industry while still controlling costs long-term is to create private health care worker welfare. If, as the time of the passing of X bill, you have been employed by the private health care industry for more than N years, and you have no other employment, then the government will pay you your current salary, indexed to inflation, until you reach age Y.

Is it terrible that these people are getting paid to do nothing? A little. But, its a finite amount of money in the long run, and it makes the transition from private to public health care much more gentle and fair to the people who are made redundant. Over time, those people will find other work, reach "retirement", or die, and then we can enjoy the full cost savings of single payer healthcare vs. Rube Goldberg healthcare roulette.
posted by rustcrumb at 1:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


witchen: Don't tread on me! Wahhhh!

There's a van with the Gadsden Flag image with "Don't Tread On My Gun Rights," and I realized anyone could appropriate the "Don't Tread on my [blank] Rights," so I wanted to make one that says "Don't Tread on Women's Rights."


You Can't Tip a Buick: so I just saw a pickup truck (in downtown Oakland) with a bumper sticker reading:

Bernie: Because Fuck this Shit


I've seen one here in New Mexico, so I had to look it up. Sadly, it's not one of his official stickers.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Does anyone know what Trump's support among the military is? I think I've read that the top brass doesn't like him, but what about the rank-and-file?

Coincidentally, the Military Times just released a poll yesterday:

Trump: 26.90%
Sanders: 21.91%
Cruz: 16.70%
Clinton: 11.17%
Rubio: 9.93%
Kasich: 7.70%
posted by zombieflanders at 1:08 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh, sure dialetheia gets her link in 1st.

It's shortcuts in commenting like this that are why we need me to Make MetaFilter Great Again.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Chicago voter here. I just got back from my polling place. They were asking everyone for ID.

Same, just voted. No ID asked for -- so something very screwy was going on there.

Busy for a primary.
posted by eriko at 1:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Extremely disruptive and extremely loud: The new power of Black activism with Ashley Williams
posted by melissasaurus at 12:43 PM on March 15 [2 favorites +] [!]


This is interesting, because so far Clinton has won the Black vote by 80 to 90 percent margins everywhere that she has run.

I don't really think I can buy the argument that Clinton is somehow anti-Black or that she represents the "same" strand of white supremacy as Trump .... unless you're willing to also argue that 90% of Black voters are ignorant and need to be gently educated as to whom they should "really" support.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 1:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]




Military Times survey: Troops back Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders for president

Coincidentally, the Military Times just released a poll yesterday:

Trump: 26.90%
Sanders: 21.91%


Great, we can count on the troops to prop up Emperor Trump or the Sanders Revolution.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:13 PM on March 15, 2016


Because in the conservative belief system, fast food jobs are the first steps for kids into the real world of Self-Sufficient Hard Work. Anyone older than a teen doing those jobs is obviously a lazy moron who needs a good dose of bootstraps, not a handout.

I have heard this So. Many. Times.

"If you want more than $7.25 you should work harder! Go to school! Get a better job!" As though new jobs just magically appear when you're a hard worker, as though college is accessible for everyone, or is a magic ticket to financial success. These folks are aware, on some level, that the overall economy can be good or bad ("repeal the job-killing Affordable Care Act!") but they always think people work minimum wage jobs because of character flaws, not because that's all that is open to them.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 1:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


This is kind of revisionist history, I think possibly colored by how people feel let down by Obama.

Speaking for myself: it is not revisionist history. I literally made and posted an image that said:
    HOPE
    for the best
    PREPARE
    for disappointment

I know a lot of people did get really excited about Obama in 2008. I was caught up in that excitement a little bit -- largely excited to get the GOP out and inspired by the fact that he did get people's hopes up -- but I was not without concerns. Drone strikes and domestic spying and the TPP are really not terribly surprising to me.
posted by Foosnark at 1:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Coincidentally, the Military Times just released a poll yesterday:

Trump: 26.90%


Trump on McCain: "He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured."

How soon they forget.
posted by zarq at 1:16 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


This is interesting, because so far Clinton has won the Black vote by 80 to 90 percent margins everywhere that she has run.

Michigan was 68% Clinton to 28% Sanders.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:16 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Why are we even discussing single-payer like it's remotely likely to actually happen in the next decade?

Because we talked about allowing gays to marry much more than a decade out. (And that's just one example.) You talking about it, and you *KEEP* talking about it, and suddenly everybody has heard of it, and you have that much more of a chance.
posted by eriko at 1:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [53 favorites]


Michigan was 68% Clinton to 28% Sanders.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:16 PM on March 15 [1 favorite +] [!]


My apologies. Clinton has won Black voters by 70 - 90 percent everywhere she has run.

I retract my original, inaccurate statements.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 1:19 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Bill Clinton hanging around Il on election day. (casual whistling) Just hanging around.
posted by Trochanter at 1:19 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think it's pretty unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to rule that there has to be single payer health insurance, though. It's not hard to imagine substantial turnover in the Supreme Court, especially if there's a Democratic Senate after the election, which could happen. I don't really see a Democratic House happening until after the post-2020 redistricting.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:20 PM on March 15, 2016


Technically she has won black voters by 40-85% everywhere she has run. 70-30 is winning by 40% not 70%.
posted by Justinian at 1:21 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Among Cuyahoga Co. potential early voters, 15.6% (!) of Dems requested GOP ballots, likely to vote Kasich. Source

That should be good for Kasich. I wonder what it will mean for the Dem result? Are strategic voters more likely to support Bernie or Hillary?

Edit: Or they could be voting for Trump, I guess.
posted by AwkwardPause at 1:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I do think that Sen. Sanders needs to do better among black voters not merely because he can't win the nomination otherwise, but because progressive politics in a multiracial nation needs to be a multiracial coalition. I don't think it would be healthy for "progressivism" to be a white-people thing, any more than it is that conservatism is a white-people thing in the US right now.

(And yes, lots of ethnic minorities are actually conservatives in other Western countries. It's possible to espouse economic and even social conservatism while not being racist. American conservatives just can't seem to make it happen though....)
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


I voted for Obama in 2008 because he seemed committed to civil governance, not because I thought he was markedly left wing. I read his book...people who expected something other than a moderate Democratic administration from him were basing those expectations on something other than his stated goals.
posted by Ipsifendus at 1:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


Trump: 26.90%
Sanders: 21.91%

Great, we can count on the troops to prop up Emperor Trump or the Sanders Revolution.


Why? Almost 75% of them don't want Trump, almost 80% don't want Sanders.

The fact that Sanders is pulling those numbers from the notably conservative military is impressive. The fact that the regular GOP candidates *aren't* is even more so.

The one thing you can say from these numbers is almost half of them will vote for these two rather than the GOP party candidate. Throw in Clinton's numbers, and it's almost 60% against the GOP party candidates.

That's the real shock. 60% of the military wants somebody who is not GOP.
posted by eriko at 1:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


I would say that it's good for Bernie.
Bill Clinton hanging around Il on election day. (casual whistling) Just hanging around.
What exactly do you think he's doing?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Among Cuyahoga Co. potential early voters, 15.6% (!) of Dems requested GOP ballots, likely to vote Kasich. Source

I'm not sure why people assume that Dem voters requesting Republican ballots are voting against Trump, especially in the Rust Belt. A lot of his best support seems to come from disaffected Democrats: "His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats."
posted by dialetheia at 1:27 PM on March 15, 2016


I don't really think I can buy the argument that Clinton is somehow anti-Black or that she represents the "same" strand of white supremacy as Trump .... unless you're willing to also argue that [XX%] of Black voters are ignorant and need to be gently educated as to whom they should "really" support.

Black voters, like white voters, or women voters, or men voters, or poor voters, or wealthy voters, or any other demographic are not a monolith. One person's statements about their view of the election (and the role of activism in politics) does not negate other people's views or votes nor do their views or votes negate hers.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


My point is that Clinton is, by all appearances, wildly popular among people of color, and white liberals either flat out refuse to believe this, argue that it's somehow technically not true, or argue that people of color need to be whitesplained about how Bernie is good for them, or simply throw their hands up and hope that a Trump presidency will somehow expose the contradictions in capitalism and bring about The Revolution, in which thousands of huge marionette puppets will peacefully overthrow the American Empire and bring about a patchouli-scented era of peace and prosperity.

Clinton represents the status quo. Trump represents a descent into the long night of fascism, an era of midnight knocks, shiny boots, stiff-armed salutes and mass graves.

People of color understand this. They are prepared to accept the status quo, because they know the alternative is so, so much worse.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 1:30 PM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


My point is that Clinton is, by all appearances, wildly popular among people of color, and white liberals either flat out refuse to believe this, argue that it's somehow technically not true, or argue that people of color need to be whitesplained about how Bernie is good for them

I'm confused about the context here - Ashley Williams is Black. So is Michelle Alexander, who wrote Why Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve the Black vote. I don't think anyone involved in the piece you're responding to was 'whitesplaining' anything.
posted by dialetheia at 1:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


Y'know, it's interesting that the proportion of support that candidates are getting in that military poll are almost directly in line with the candidates' dovishness. (Sure, Trump is batshit enough that he might get us into a war with Argentina for all we know, but he's at least expressed pretty on-point criticism of the wars during this primary season). Then you've got Sanders, a relatively isolationist liberal.

If you'd asked me to guess what the poll results would've been, I would have estimated much stronger support for Kasich and Rubio, establishment conservative types. Also warmongerers, though. So... maybe we should listen to the people who'd be on the front lines, and not the chickenhawks?
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:35 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


What exactly do you think he's doing?

So many wrong things I can say here....

Speaking solely for my area of Chicago (Chicago is *huge*, focusing on one person's stomping grounds is a great way to misread the city.) But, having said that, speaking solely for my area?

Not one sign that Clinton is running for president. Lots of Sanders ads. Lots of proud Sanders voters -- as in wearing Sanders gear -- voting today. But I was...confused? surprised? I'm not sure...but it sure seemed odd that there wasn't even a Clinton sign in the windows somewhere.

It's odd. There was plenty of both Clinton and Obama in this same neighborhood eight years ago. I don't know how to read those tea-leaves.

The neighborhood has changed in the last 8 years, true.
posted by eriko at 1:35 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


In regards to conservatives who are contemplating various strategies involving floor fights at the GOP convention, or independent bids by someone other than Trump, here's what I don't understand: given that any such scenarios are likely to result in a massive blowout at the polls, virtually guaranteeing the Democratic nominee the win, why are they bothering? Surely there must be some establishment Republicans somewhere who both hate Trump enough not to support him, and have the integrity to stand up in public and say, "It would be better for us to lose this Presidential election and spend the next four years fighting Clinton tooth and nail in Congress. At least that way we get to keep our souls."
posted by Ipsifendus at 1:35 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm confused about the context here - Ashley Williams is Black. So is Michelle Alexander, who wrote Why Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve the Black vote.

90% of voting Black people in my home state disagree with Ashley Williams and Michelle Alexander. White liberals hold up a few black folk who agree with them and say "look! look here! See? You should think like them. You should think like these black friends of mine, who've got the right idea!"

That's not whitesplaining?
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 1:35 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Michelle Alexander also explicitly says "[t]his is not an endorsement for Bernie Sanders." She thinks Bernie is better than Hillary, but she thinks he's profoundly problematic and that there's unlikely to be real change from within the Democratic party. That's a common view among black (and other) radicals, but it's wrong to depict it as an endorsement of Bernie, and I think it's important to recognize that most voters are not radicals.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:37 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


How soon they forget.

Live by the swiftboater, die by the swiftboater. I'm not a member of the party that made attacking a person's military record part of campaigning.
posted by eriko at 1:37 PM on March 15, 2016


White liberals hold up a few black folk who agree with them and say "look! look here! See? You should think like them. You should think like these black friends of mine, who've got the right idea!"

I posted, without further comment, a link to an interview with an activist who happens to be a black queer woman. You're reading into this way more than was actually there.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


That's a common view among black (and other) radicals, but it's wrong to depict it as an endorsement of Bernie, and I think it's important to recognize that most voters are not radicals.

Certainly, I didn't mean to represent it as if it was and I apologize if I did. I don't think Ashley Williams endorsed Sanders, either. I am just confused about the idea that it's not OK to link to other voices as well - even in states where 90% of Black voters voted for Clinton, I'm not sure why that 10% shouldn't deserve a voice, too. I don't think anyone is actually trying to say "everyone should think like this" when they post links to other perspectives but I am sorry if it comes across that way.
posted by dialetheia at 1:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


Wow.

Just wow.

A statement that will neither win you Sanders voters or Trump voters.
posted by eriko at 1:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Coincidentally, the Military Times just released a poll yesterday:

Trump: 26.90%

Trump on McCain: "He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured."

How soon they forget.


Trump is more than one slogan, and it usually takes more than one slogan to sway a person.

But I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when groups of military people first heard that, to see how they reacted. That statement isn't flat-out anti-military, it's a crude effort by a draft dodger, who said that in prep school he received more military training than most actual soldiers did, to smear an actual combat vet as weak.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]




And she literally says in the interview that "folks [disadvantaged along one or more axis] cannot afford to have anyone who is currently running actually win." So, it is not an endorsement of any candidate.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


New Slogan for Rubio:

Rubio: A Presidential Candidate At Whose Rallies you Don't Get Beaten Up
posted by theorique at 1:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


Don't tread on me! Wahhhh!

Pwease No Steppy.
posted by sparkletone at 1:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


OK I wrote a whole response but it's not worth arguing this again.

I'm a supporter of Bernie Sanders and I'm not white, there are lots of other people who are black and brown who also support him. We're not made up and we're not race traitors.

Can we move on, please?
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:46 PM on March 15, 2016 [27 favorites]


Rubio: Relax nerds! You're safe here
posted by ian1977 at 1:46 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sure, Trump is batshit enough that he might get us into a war with Argentina for all we know

He's gonna get us into more than a war in just Argentina. Trump has stated in a debate he'd send 30,000 soldiers into the Middle East again to fight ISIS. Along with his general hostility towards China, his campaign website has said he plans on boosting US military presence in the South China Sea.

I guess the only way you would vote for Trump and see him as not too war-like is if you think he's not saying what he means.
posted by FJT at 1:46 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wow.

Just wow.

A statement that will neither win you Sanders voters or Trump voters.
Suddenly in the crowd, Rubio spotted a Bernie Sanders sign. Did he get angry? Did he threaten violence? Did he encourage his supporters to “rough up” the protester and “carry them out in a stretcher”?

Nah!
“Oh look, a Bernie Sanders sign,” Rubio said excitedly. “Don’t worry, you’re not gonna get beat up at my rally!”
The crowd cheered, as if it were something to actually cheer for rather than what should have simply been a fact. Oh well, at least they didn’t boo.
I'll take whatever little fig-leaf-shaped bits of paper count for political civility today, because there's so much open hate out there.

So let's all cheer for civility over hatred, even if we don't vote for the candidate.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [41 favorites]


Along with his general hostility towards China, his campaign website has said he plans on boosting US military presence in the South China Sea.

As someone who currently lives in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, I am really really concerned with Trump's rhetoric on China, Japan, North Korea, etc., etc., etc.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


“Oh look, a Bernie Sanders sign,” Rubio said excitedly. “Don’t worry, you’re not gonna get beat up at my rally!”

Poor Rubio - I almost feel sorry for him. He was probably just excited that he was still relevant enough to bother protesting
posted by dialetheia at 1:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


Trump's foreign policy is really too terrifying to think about.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sangermaine: But only one candidate will protect humanity from daemons, Orks, xeno-scum, and heretics.

AKA Muslims and Immigrants.

You act like a post-apocalyptic despot, you get called a post-apocalyptic despot. Donald Trump Quotes and Immortan Joe Gifs!
posted by filthy light thief at 1:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Rubio is just Jeb in younger and Cuban-American form. What's there to truly feel sorry for? He'll still be making millions from speaking tours and book deals for the rest of his life. So he doesn't get the power. He'll still get the money.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:51 PM on March 15, 2016


“Oh look, a Bernie Sanders sign,” Rubio said excitedly. “Don’t worry, you’re not gonna get beat up at my rally!”

Have a cookie, Marco. *hands over a stale fragment of graham cracker, the saddest cookie of all*
posted by duffell at 1:53 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


> But only one candidate will protect humanity from daemons, Orks, xeno-scum, and heretics.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:45 PM on March 15 [2 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]

It strikes me that there are at least two Chaos Gods that I'd rather see as President if the alternative is Trump.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:54 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Don't tread on me! Wahhhh!

Pwease No Steppy.


Anybody who votes Trump is just asking for it.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:54 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


But only one candidate will protect humanity from daemons, Orks, xeno-scum, and heretics.

Couldn't be Trump - if there was anyone who was the WAAAGH given flesh it would be him. I bet if you open his suit, you'll find a bunch of snotlings frantically working the gears as a gretchin barks catchphrases into a speaking cone.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 1:54 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


graham crackers aren't cookies any more than cereal is soup I will fight you
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:55 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Suddenly in the crowd, Rubio spotted a Bernie Sanders sign. Did he get angry? Did he threaten violence? Did he encourage his supporters to “rough up” the protester and “carry them out in a stretcher”?

BUT ... did anybody see what Rubio did then?

HE RAISED HIS RIGHT HAND IN A NAZI SALUTE!


posted by theorique at 1:55 PM on March 15, 2016




You know, I'm a terrible old cynic. For a few minutes I thought that quip about the Sanders sign was pretty good, pretty human.

Then here came the cynic. I didn't see no sign.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
posted by Trochanter at 2:00 PM on March 15, 2016


I mean, Clinton was expected to lose Illinois, right?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:01 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yep. Illinois is pretty much a neighbor of Vermont.
posted by localhuman at 2:01 PM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


I think she very well may lose Illinois, but she's still mostly considered the front-runner there. The thing to keep in mind is that winning or losing particular states isn't the most important thing. The most important thing is the delegate count. So if she loses by a little in some states but wins by a lot in others, she still gets most of the delegates.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's Vermont turtles, all the way down.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Shock Illinois exit poll: Hispanics voting 65-35 @BernieSanders over @hillaryclinton.

Brilliant! I'm super happy about that result, if it holds -- and as I said upthread, based on what I've been seeing in my majority-Latino neighborhood, I'm not all that shocked....
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:05 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]




But, having said that, speaking solely for my area? Not one sign that Clinton is running for president. Lots of Sanders ads. Lots of proud Sanders voters -- as in wearing Sanders gear -- voting today. But I was...confused? surprised? I'm not sure...but it sure seemed odd that there wasn't even a Clinton sign in the windows somewhere.

in my area which was a guaranteed win for clinton (which is how it shook out) i saw one single clinton sign on election day. lots and lots of bernie - signs, shirts, flags, i'm sure someone was carrying tickertape w/ bernie's name on it just in case a parade broke out (hell, we actually had a pro-bernie parade during early voting) - and yet, still went to clinton. not saying that will happen in your area - could be just as easily that she know she won't take it so she didn't expend any primary efforts - just that signs don't equal support.
posted by nadawi at 2:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Remember - 538 had Clinton winning Michigan with a 99% chance.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:08 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


What's there to truly feel sorry for? He'll still be making millions from speaking tours and book deals for the rest of his life. So he doesn't get the power. He'll still get the money.

Nah. In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power.
posted by phearlez at 2:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


signs don't equal support

Absolutely. I'm pretty sure there were a lot more Chuy signs than Emmanuel signs in the mayoral race last year, and Rahm still won handily (if by much less than he was expected to).
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


She has been predicted to win Illinois:
...
Remember - 538 had Clinton winning Michigan with a 99% chance.


Which was, to be fair, an accurate representation of the polling at the time.

Not to say Sanders won't win Illinois today. Just that Clinton is indeed expected to take it. (Just as she was in Michigan.)
posted by saturday_morning at 2:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton has hired a lot of people who were involved in the 2012 Obama election, and one of their favorite sayings was "yard signs don't vote." Signs are really not a high priority for the current Democratic electioneers.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


BUT ... did anybody see what Rubio did then?

HE RAISED HIS RIGHT HAND IN A NAZI SALUTE!


I did Nazi that, no.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:13 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's Vermont turtles, all the way down.

Sanders is elected with great ceremony. At the swearing in, he gives a secret gesture on live television- Howard Dean pulls a velvet rope and the giant banner of the Green Mountain Boys drapes over Old Glory in the background, overshadowing it. "Ha ha!" cackles the new Governor of the Vermont Republic. "You thought I was going to conquer America for a foreign power, but you never expected it was Ethan Allen's!"
posted by Apocryphon at 2:13 PM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


maple syrup uber alles
uber alles maple syrup
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Nate Silver and 538 has also made adjustments to their odds - based on demographics.
How The Democrats Will Do, Based On Demographics

*Note - there is no source for where/ how he got his demographic data on which he bases these claims.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:16 PM on March 15, 2016


Vox: Where Sanders needs to win today to truly scare Hillary Clinton: Illinois is at the top of their list. "Illinois is the most important contest to watch today. Clinton has led in most of the polling there, but there’s at least a chance that the state might deliver Sanders a dramatic, race-altering upset — though if the victory is narrow, he won't gain much ground in delegates."
posted by dialetheia at 2:16 PM on March 15, 2016


for what might be the first time ever, my mom voted today. i'm terrified to ask her who she voted for...
posted by nadawi at 2:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


DONT TREAD
posted by nicepersonality at 2:19 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


> "Nate Silver and 538 has also made adjustments to their odds - based on demographics."

Their demographic models put the probability of a Clinton win at 66% in Illinois and 58% in Ohio -- still leaning in Clinton's favor, but much much closer and less certain than the polling models suggest, if the demographic models turn out to be the accurate ones. Note that's probability of win, not percentage victory. (In Ohio, for example, the demographics suggest it should be about a 3 percentage point Clinton win.)
posted by kyrademon at 2:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


She has been predicted to win Illinois:

And this is why you can't trust polls.
posted by zarq at 2:23 PM on March 15, 2016


pocketfullofrye: people are talking about indicting Hillary for the exact same things Rice and Powell did that nobody has ever mentioned.
faint of butt: Why can't we indict Rice and Powell too?

"We" (meaning politically-driven Washington prosecutors) certainly could.

But these are the first three Secretaries of State ever to use email in any substantial way. They had no previous model to follow, and did what seemed to make sense, and no one told them it was a bad practice. No apparent harm resulted, and no one cared about this until it became a weapon to use against Hillary.

I think that if the people here making this argument are honest, the appeal of prosecuting all 3 has a lot more to do with inflicting pain on political enemies than any good-faith belief that these SOSs were engaged in malfeasance. And that's really not a good path to start going down.
posted by msalt at 2:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


Jason Leopold, the reporter who initially sued for access to Clinton's public record emails: Why You Actually Should Care About Hillary Clinton's Damn Emails
posted by dialetheia at 2:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


So, in the coming weeks after today, according to 538's demographic models, it looks like there's going to be a long string of states where the demographics favor Sanders -- Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, with only Arizona a better one for Clinton. But after that, there's a period of states with more Clinton-friendly demographics -- New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, with only Rhode Island a better one for Sanders. Interesting.
posted by kyrademon at 2:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


To continue the wild baseless pipe dream hypothetical speculation of brokered conventions, would would the DNC try to push happens if HRC wins the primary race and then somehow got indicted during the convention? It's an impossible scenario, but not nil, and it's fun to imagine because the Democratic race has only two contenders this year.

Not sure if they would give the delegates to Bernie. Would alienate everyone who voted against him, too radical a move.

O'Malley and Webb are out. Too uninspiring, dropped out too soon to be considered.

The usual unity figures mentioned are Kerry and Biden. But is there anyone else at all? It seems so establishment and Republican to dip into yesteryear's defeated candidates as a compromise candidate.

Anyway, hypothetical brokered candidates are fascinating in that it sort of reveals who the party, or at least the party establishment, trusts as a "fallback president." The RNC rumors about Romney, Ryan, Condi, and Jeb(!) are likewise interesting.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:36 PM on March 15, 2016


If they didn't give the delegates to Bernie, they'd alienate everyone who voted for him. Pick your poison.
posted by Lyme Drop at 2:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, in the coming weeks after today, according to 538's demographic models, it looks like there's going to be a long string of states where the demographics favor Sanders -- Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, with only Arizona a better one for Clinton. But after that, there's a period of states with more Clinton-friendly demographics -- New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, with only Rhode Island a better one for Sanders. Interesting.

The biggest one to watch is California on June 7 with 548 delegate votes, which I suspect will be a lot closer than initial polls are predicting.
posted by zarq at 2:42 PM on March 15, 2016


The indictment stuff is a total red herring. The more concerning issue about the FBI investigation is its potential impact on how voters evaluate her honesty/trustworthiness, which is easily her biggest issue in most polls. Anyway, I am just tired of seeing people represent concern over FOIA and public records law evasion as being politically motivated. I believe that full reporter access to FOIA-able documents is really important to a functioning press. I understand other people have different priorities, but that doesn't make it ridiculous to be concerned about the email server, much less its impact on her electability (especially now that the guy who set it up has been granted immunity in exchange for testimony, and since her closest aides are going to be testifying about it over the course of this year).
posted by dialetheia at 2:43 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I can't believe this is actually going to drag on until June. We're all going to be totally burnt out before the campaigning for the actual election even begins!

I'm thinking I might tune it all out for a while.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


If it comes down to it, is there anybody around left who knows how to campaign for President in California? They've been using our state as nothing more than an ATM for national campaigns for so long.
posted by zachlipton at 2:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Make MetaFilter Great Again

Vote #1 quidnunc kid!
posted by orrnyereg at 2:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Please fix our surging wealth inequality and housing crisis.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:46 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


> If it comes down to it, is there anybody around left who knows how to campaign for President in California? They've been using our state as nothing more than an ATM for national campaigns for so long.
posted by zachlipton at 2:45 PM on March 15 [+] [!]


According to this documentary, the result of the 2008 Presidential election (you know, the one between Clinton/Lieberman and Elliot/Frost) hinged on California.

maybe the future is in fact more futuristic than predicted...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:51 PM on March 15, 2016


Anyway, hypothetical brokered candidates are fascinating in that it sort of reveals who the party, or at least the party establishment, trusts as a "fallback president."

As well as legal problems, there's other reasons e.g. campaign incident, currently not-public scandal, or ill health (or worse) for why any of Bernie (74), Donald (69) or Hillary (68) may not be a candidate, or even active in politics, come the election in two-thirds of a years time.

A couple of my Democratic Party activist friends in Iowa keep saying that there is support for Amy Klobuchar to be brought in as a candidate if needs be. No idea how feasible, or how much support, there actually is.
posted by Wordshore at 2:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]




Am I the only one for whom Sanders' age is an issue? It's not nearly enough of an issue for not voting for him enthusiastically in the general if it came to that, but 74 is damn old to run for a first term. It's damn old to run for a second term...
posted by Justinian at 2:53 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Don't forget the also crazy-but-also-not-nil chance of Cruz being excluded because of the Canadian birth thing.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:55 PM on March 15, 2016


But is there anyone else at all?

We'll fight celebrity with celebrity by nominating Tom Hanks. He'll end his rallies by pretending to spray snot out of his nose with silly string.
posted by FJT at 2:55 PM on March 15, 2016


Am I the only won for whom Sanders' age is an issue?

I've heard it before, so you're definitely not the only one, but he's only 6 years older than Clinton and 5 years older than Trump.
posted by dialetheia at 2:56 PM on March 15, 2016


> We'll fight celebrity with celebrity by...

George. Clooney.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


honestly the age of all the front runners is a concern to me but, as with so much about this election, i have to compare them to each other and not the imaginary candidates that i wish were up there fighting the good fight...
posted by nadawi at 2:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


But is there anyone else at all?

Oprah
posted by melissasaurus at 2:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa at age 76.
posted by theraflu at 2:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I've heard it before, so you're definitely not the only one, but he's only 6 years older than Clinton and 5 years older than Trump.

Is this election the Boomers Strike Back after A New [Gen-X] Hope, or what?
posted by Apocryphon at 2:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think the age thing is going to make the VP selection particularly important. Sarah Palin might not have been as much of a problem for John McCain if it hadn't been for people doing the math and realizing that there was a real chance he'd have an incapacitating medical issue. Whoever gets the nomination is going to have to pick a VP who people will think of as a legitimate potential president, not just checking off a bunch of electoral boxes.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:00 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oprah

Oh god, to be honest that is probably the President this country deserves.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:00 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh god, to be honest that is probably the President this country deserves.
? so it's NOT Trump?
posted by Max Power at 3:02 PM on March 15, 2016


I think the age thing is going to make the VP selection particularly important. Sarah Palin might not have been as much of a problem for John McCain if it hadn't been for people doing the math and realizing that there was a real chance he'd have an incapacitating medical issue.

I'm not sure about that. I remember people, myself included, just being repulsed by her. She seemed to embody everything stupid and obnoxious and nasty about Republicans, like she was created in some lab by liberals to mock conservatives but then they embraced her.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've heard it before, so you're definitely not the only one, but he's only 6 years older than Clinton and 5 years older than Trump.

And I wish they were younger, too. Well not Trump 'cause screw that guy. But I don't have a choice between a 74 year old and a 60 year old...
posted by Justinian at 3:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I remember people, myself included, just being repulsed by her.
Well, I mean, me too, but I'm not ever going to vote for a Republican no matter what. I definitely ran into some people who might have rolled their eyes and thought that it was just typical pandering to a demographic, except that it occurred to them that she could actually be president.

I don't think it matters for Trump, because Trump is a cult of personality, and his followers don't see him as an old man anyway. But it would matter for Bernie or Hillary.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:06 PM on March 15, 2016


If elected, Bernie Sanders would be the oldest U.S. president ever.

So would Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton would be the same age as Ronald Reagan was when he took office. And he's the current oldest-president-of-all-time.

Hopefully all three will pick good VP's, but I don't think this is cause for concern. If they can survive the campaign, they can survive being in office.
posted by zarq at 3:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


FWIW, the life expectancy of a 74 year old man is 10 years, so there's a decent chance of not making it through one term and a moderate chance of not making it through two. The life expectancy of a 69 year old woman is 16 years. Just to be morbid.
posted by Justinian at 3:08 PM on March 15, 2016


And I wish they were younger, too

Martin O'Malley is 53 years young.
posted by FJT at 3:10 PM on March 15, 2016


On the flip side, it also demonstrates how far medical science has advanced since 1980.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ugh: Trump has received nearly $2 billion in free media coverage this year

FWIW, the life expectancy ...

Luckily, reasoning from the population back to the individual is really misleading. There is substantial variability around that mean.
posted by dialetheia at 3:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


FWIW, the life expectancy of a 74 year old man is 10 years, so there's a decent chance of not making it through one term and a moderate chance of not making it through two. The life expectancy of a 69 year old woman is 16 years. Just to be morbid.

Life expectancy is a mean. Presidents have the best medical care in the world while they're in office. Their chances of thriving are higher than the rest of the population.
posted by zarq at 3:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, that's true. I just think being President is such a high stress, tiring job that I'd prefer someone in late middle age to someone elderly. I suppose 70 is the new 50.
posted by Justinian at 3:14 PM on March 15, 2016


I can't wait to see the before-and-after pictures of Sanders after eight years in office.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:17 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders wins some battles but continues to lose the war as Clinton pads her lead by a decent number of net delegates. I suspect her lead will be at least 250 by the end of the day... So if she loses by a little in some states but wins by a lot in others, she still gets most of the delegates.

At the moment, with 0% of the votes counted in five states (FL, IL, MO, NC, OH), Hillary has won 71 delegates and Bernie 4.
posted by LeLiLo at 3:17 PM on March 15, 2016


I'm not sure about that. I remember people, myself included, just being repulsed by her. She seemed to embody everything stupid and obnoxious and nasty about Republicans, like she was created in some lab by liberals to mock conservatives but then they embraced her.

In the month before the 2008 I was doing an American adventure thing, traveling on a 7,000 mile loop of Amtrak trains. Conversation about politics was usually polite, even between people of all different political persuasions. I've been at train dinner tables where Obama and McCain supporters had civil and respectful conversations, as we approached the election.

Unless one specific name came up. Yep. One of several incidents.
posted by Wordshore at 3:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


i wonder if because of reagan there might be some digging in to the candidates families to see if dementia has been an issue.
posted by nadawi at 3:19 PM on March 15, 2016


Trump/Caligula 2016
posted by zarq at 3:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


The thing with Palin was it took a little while for people to realize how under qualified she was. Her resume was short but pretty accomplished for what it was, and she could deliver a great speech when it was written for her. But then the interviews and other off the cuff moments made people realize she did not have the knowledge or temperament for national politics.

Trump is similar to her in many ways, for instance being totally unfit for national politics, but he can handle softball interviews without completely destroying himself at least. He can handle the media, if not the politics.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]




i wonder if because of reagan there might be some digging in to the candidates families to see if dementia has been an issue.

Donald Trump's father had Alzheimer's. On the other hand he lived to be 94.
posted by mmoncur at 3:26 PM on March 15, 2016


Make the Apocalypse Weird Again — vote Tzeentch/Slaanesh 2016.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think that Trump would (will? shudder) pick a fairly nondescript person as his VP candidate; that is, someone who wouldn't upstage him at all. But that's just my opinion.
posted by dhens at 3:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Matt Taibbi: How the New York Times sandbagged Bernie Sanders

I was totally here to link that dialetheia. Unreal.
posted by Trochanter at 3:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


The new version, though, reads very differently. In it, Sanders is described as a "small-ball" legislator whose career has been spent doing unimportant little things. The focus of the piece is now less on the what of his legislative victories than on the where: the margins.

Down with Sanders and his effective pragmatic incrementalism! Vote Hillary, because Sanders only has crazy big ideas he can't pass!
posted by Drinky Die at 3:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


Donald Trump's father had Alzheimer's. On the other hand he lived to be 94.

As an minor aside, it's pretty amazing that John McCain's mother is still alive at 102. She was born in 1912, another year of much conflict for the Republicans.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Matt Taibbi: How the New York Times sandbagged Bernie Sanders

And I wasn't quite frustrated enough with this primary. Thank you.
posted by Gaz Errant at 3:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


After or before?
posted by ian1977 at 3:31 PM on March 15, 2016




Matt Taibbi: How the New York Times sandbagged Bernie Sanders

everytime i think they've finally perfected the art of doublespeak, minitrue comes out with a new edition of a newspeak. big brother would be so proud.
posted by Glibpaxman at 3:35 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump/Wasp Nest Full of Dead Spiders '16
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:35 PM on March 15, 2016 [26 favorites]


Wow. According to MSNBC, 58% of all GOP voters today feel "betrayed by Republican politicians." I shouldn't be surprised - that has been one of the most persistent messages coming from the Tea Party - but I'm surprised it's such a strong majority of GOP voters. Only 38% don't feel betrayed.
posted by dialetheia at 3:36 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


The grossest part of that NYT story is that they substantially changed the article after a lot of people - including the Sanders campaign - had shared the article. It's one thing to give mostly unfavorable coverage, but it's another thing entirely to substantially edit the piece after the fact.
posted by dialetheia at 3:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


I wonder what the percentage would be for Democrats?
posted by benito.strauss at 3:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well I don't feel betrayed by Republicans, I just think they are assholes.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]




still alive at 102. She was born in 1912

Now I'm not great at math, but
posted by beerperson at 3:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


." I shouldn't be surprised - that has been one of the most persistent messages coming from the Tea Party - but I'm surprised it's such a strong majority of GOP voters. Only 38% don't feel betrayed.

I think there are a lot of people voting for Trump who aren't racist or Make America Great people, they're just super low information, consider themselves GOP or at least not Democrat, and then go vote and think Trump seems ok. I think they go and vote, and go home and make dinner and forget all about it, but they think politicians are "all the same" and maybe this other guy would be ok, but anyway it's this far away politics thing so, shrug, I know some people who like that Trump.

I watched some footage of the Nevada caucus and it had all these people sitting and discussing at the table, and then almost all checking Trump. I doubt the discussion was "trade deals" or even "yeah, a wall sounds great." It was like someone saying they don't like all those politicians in Washington but maybe the Trump guy is different.

I grew up inside the Beltway and have spent my whole life in the NE corridor so this perspective is crazy alien to me, but I think it's out there.
posted by zutalors! at 3:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]




Wow. According to MSNBC, 58% of all GOP voters today feel "betrayed by Republican politicians."

i feel like this is the reverse no true scotsman - they feel betrayed by the republicans which is why they're supporting this specific republican in offices from county clerk to president because their candidate is going to get all those other republicans to start actin right! or whatever.
posted by nadawi at 3:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


The thing with Palin was it took a little while for people to realize how under qualified she was.

Daily Show clip - John McCain Chooses a Running Mate; August 29 2008

So, like, 8 hours, then?
posted by soundguy99 at 3:47 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]




Here's a one to one of the changes to the Sandbagged article.

The headline change is just so frickin blatant.
posted by Gaz Errant at 3:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


NYT Upshot: The Geography of Trumpism

Trump counties include places that have voted for both Republicans and Democrats, and the strongest predictors of Trump support include how a county responded to two very different third-party candidates: Trump territory showed stronger support for the segregationist George Wallace in the 1968 election than the rest of the country, and substantially weaker support for the liberal-leaning former Republican John B. Anderson in 1980.

Also:

Despite evidence that some individual Trump voters are driven by racial hostility, this analysis didn’t show a particularly powerful relationship between the racial breakdown of a county and its likelihood of voting for Trump. There are Trump-supporting counties with both very high and very low proportions of African-Americans, for example.

One of the strongest predictors of Trump support is the proportion of the population that is native-born. Relatively few people in the places where Trump is strong are immigrants — and, as their answers on their ancestry reveal, they very much wear Americanness on their sleeve.

posted by FJT at 3:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


> I think there are a lot of people voting for Trump who aren't racist or Make America Great people, they're just super low information, consider themselves GOP or at least not Democrat, and then go vote and think Trump seems ok.

Millions of people put orders of magnitude more thought into choosing their fantasy football teams than their elected representatives and then wonder why shit is so fucked up.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


MSNBC reporting that a precinct in Illinois is out of ballots, and trying to get a court order to stay open.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:51 PM on March 15, 2016


So, Taibbi says that cutting the last sentence from the McCain quote wasn't a big deal, but I disagree. That last sentence -- "It was the first real reform of the V.A. ever." -- gives a measure of what being "very effective" means. It establishes that Sanders has sometimes done large and unprecedented things. Cutting that sentence substantially weakens McCain's praise for Sanders.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 3:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


I grew up inside the Beltway and have spent my whole life in the NE corridor so this perspective is crazy alien to me, but I think it's out there.

No offense, but I live in an area with a lot of Trump and Cruz voters and I think they are way less "low information" than you think. They just have bad information. People have idiosyncratic reasons, and the source of their information is frequently looney-tunes right-wing propaganda from facebook and weird forums, but most do seem to have have more complex reasons than "eh, whatever, I just hate politics" to vote for Trump. There really is a sense of anger and betrayal toward the Republican party (that + racism are how the Tea Party got so big), and a lot of it does revolve around the failure to provide a functioning economy for working people (plus racism, of course). Whether people blame taxes or trade deals or immigration or what for that varies a lot, but it's not just pure ignorance with no reasoning - it's reasoning from false premises.
posted by dialetheia at 3:52 PM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


Are poll workers allowed to quote candidates' slogans? The volunteer at my polling place here in Florida scanned my driver license and asked "Are you ready to make America great again?" I laughed it off and replied "Sure, but not like that," and he said "Aw, sure you are!" We're a closed primary state. I pulled a Democrat ballot.
posted by Servo5678 at 3:53 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think there are a lot of people voting for Trump who aren't racist or Make America Great people, they're just super low information, consider themselves GOP or at least not Democrat, and then go vote and think Trump seems ok.

I live in Houston, where we just failed to pass the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance last Fall mostly because conservatives successfully painted it as an ordinance that would allow creepy men to enter bathrooms with your little daughter. In reality it made it against the law to discriminate on the basis of sex, gender, race, and like 15 other things. I got drunk and posted upset things on Facebook that night, and proceeded to run into like 3 people the next day who saw that and asked why I was so upset about the 'bathroom bill'. It was a real eye opener for me about how many people are really low information...
posted by DynamiteToast at 3:55 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think "Sí, se puede" is the best possible response to a pollworker asking you a question like that
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [31 favorites]


You know, you could charitably interpret those edits to paint Bernie as a patient legislator who's been getting things done and building bridges behind the scenes for 25 years, if only it weren't for those two flagrant paragraphs. It's like they just had to make sure nobody got the wrong idea, that they had to assure whoever was reading that they're still bought and sold for Hillary all the way.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 3:56 PM on March 15, 2016


Because in the conservative belief system, fast food jobs are the first steps for kids into the real world of Self-Sufficient Hard Work.

they also seem to join many of the other minimum wage jobs in being work that slaves used to do
posted by pyramid termite at 3:57 PM on March 15, 2016


Beware the ides of Marco.

(Maybe that should be the "ideas of Marco"?)
posted by GrammarMoses at 3:57 PM on March 15, 2016


Are poll workers allowed to quote candidates' slogans? The volunteer at my polling place here in Florida scanned my driver license and asked "Are you ready to make America great again?"

Sure, but not like that.

If I were you, I'd call the local election commission.
posted by box at 3:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


No offense, but I live in an area with a lot of Trump and Cruz voters and I think they are way less "low information" than you think. They just have bad information.

I agree. At this stage in the internet and 24 hour media era, it's rare to be a low information era, but increasingly common to have bad information. That's a much worse problem for people still interested in pedestrian things like facts and reality, because it's pretty easy to provide information to people who don't have it, but maddening to try to correct falsehoods once they've taken root.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 3:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Life expectancy is a mean. Presidents have the best medical care in the world while they're in office. Their chances of thriving are higher than the rest of the population.

I think once you weigh that against the stress of the job it comes out in the wash, but that's just me. There's also the question of how much medical care can do against 70 years of health choices.

That said, I have 0 concerns about the ages of the candidates.
posted by phearlez at 3:59 PM on March 15, 2016


Here's a one to one of the changes to the Sandbagged article.

Interesting. They truncated McCain's quote, too, to remove his inaccurate statement that Sanders' had helped create the first reform of the Veteran's Administration. I remember shaking my head at that little bit of ahistorical hyperbole when I saw it in the original article. Anyone who knows anything about the VA's history knows that it has undergone quite a few changes and shakeups over the decades, most spurred by scandal, corruption, protests and investigative commissions.
posted by zarq at 4:00 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


The new version, though, reads very differently. In it, Sanders is described as a "small-ball" legislator whose career has been spent doing unimportant little things. The focus of the piece is now less on the what of his legislative victories than on the where: the margins.

the problem is that the story told by gatekeepers like the nytimes and the story told right in front of your face are diverging more and more strongly, because the material and social conditions of the apparatchiks that work their are diverging more and more strongly from everyone else.

the Clintons are just blatantly corrupt. but this is ++ungood until a gatekeeper can announce it. until then, you can point to any piece of evidence and your audience will say (to themselves): "well, if they were really crooks why hasn't the Times told me this?"

but that's the ultimate problem with centrists like Sanders; there's little space for being an honest politician the divisions in society are becoming so radical.
posted by ennui.bz at 4:00 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Age-wise, I feel like if Candidates can survive the campaign trail, which by all accounts is grueling, they are in sufficiently good health to be president.
posted by zug at 4:01 PM on March 15, 2016


After Judith Miller, I'm astounded the New York Times has the balls to continue publishing, much less people considering it more credible than the old Weekly World News...
posted by mikelieman at 4:02 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


The VA's troubled history. Timeline was published in 2014, right in the middle of one of the most recent scandals.
posted by zarq at 4:02 PM on March 15, 2016


Also, the NYT is just as guilty in not performing due diligence in vetting the fraudulent Bush Administration claims offered to obtain the AUMF-Iraq as Hillary Clinton, and shares the blood on their hands.
posted by mikelieman at 4:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


They say that if you're explaining you're losing, which is kind of a problem if you want to promote an idea more complicated than, say, "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." As usual, The Simpsons did it:

In Bart's class, the two presidential candidates, Martin and Bart, hold a debate. Martin cites that the classroom has a level of 1.74 parts per million of asbestos. However, the class sides with Bart, as he demands more asbestos. At home, Homer reads Barts class newspaper and is impressed with his popularity. He encourages Bart to continue taking the election seriously and to go after Martin and win. A montage ensues, showing Bart leading rallies and posting pro-Bart signs and anti-Martin signs; all while a nervous Martin looks on in despair.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


MSNBC in Ohio saying that normally they see a 2-1 Republican vote, today it seems to be 3-1, with Democrats posting protest votes in favor of Governor Kasich.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:05 PM on March 15, 2016


I hope they're all Hillary's.
posted by Trochanter at 4:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Millions of people put orders of magnitude more thought into choosing their fantasy football teams than their elected representatives and then wonder why shit is so fucked up.

And to cap it off, all my teams STILL suck.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


centrists like Sanders

He's not a centrist. See the left-most blue dot on this chart? Hover over it.
posted by zarq at 4:08 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


CNN showing exit polls that say a majority of Florida voters don't support deporting illegal immigrants and their talking heads are saying people are still voting not on issues but just emotion, because they want a revolution.

Personally I find it hard to reconcile primary voters on both sides wanting a revolution when Obama has an approval rating about as high as Reagan's.
posted by zutalors! at 4:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Bernie is gray. The dot, I mean. He is leftmost.

The leftmost blue is ironically named Blumenthal.
posted by FJT at 4:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Millions of people put orders of magnitude more thought into choosing their fantasy football teams than their elected representatives and then wonder why shit is so fucked up.

And to cap it off, all my teams STILL suck.


And the guy who forgot to show up for the draft and had his team autoselected makes it to the playoffs? Yeah, I'll make AMERICA GREAT AGAIN damnit!
posted by Glibpaxman at 4:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie is gray. The dot, I mean. He is leftmost.

Ah, thanks. I'm colorblind.
posted by zarq at 4:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Make the Apocalypse Weird Again — vote Tzeentch/Slaanesh 2016.

Ungh. Of course Tzeentch would go for the younger running mate with a nice racks. Nurgle should have got the nod - that dude is willing to get his hands really, really dirty.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well, the thing about fantasy football is that the players get far more power in getting to draft their teams. In American politics unless you're particularly civically engaged, usually the ballots are set on auto-draft.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hey everyone, it's Ruth Bader Ginsburg's birthday today! Not everything is terrible!
posted by triggerfinger at 4:13 PM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Personally I find it hard to reconcile primary voters on both sides wanting a revolution when Obama has an approval rating about as high as Reagan's.

I think, on the left at least, it's like "can you imagine how much more Obama could have accomplished if we didn't have a corrupt campaign finance system?"
posted by melissasaurus at 4:13 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


At this stage in the internet and 24 hour media era, it's rare to be a low information era, but increasingly common to have bad information.
I don't know. I've said this before, but I've come across a number of young women who tell me that they don't think they should vote because they don't have enough time to really research the candidates, and they think it's irresponsible to vote if you're not really informed. They tend to be working-class and really overextended. There was a woman who lived in my apartment complex, for instance, who was in her early 20s and who had a toddler and was working and going to school part-time. They're low-information non-voters, not low-information voters, and I suspect they have more information than they think they do, but they're definitely not people who have a lot of time to devote to cable news or the internet.

But yeah, there are definitely a lot of bad information voters. There are also a lot of people who just have really different priorities than me. I may think it's dumb as fuck that opposition to gun control is your number one issue, but for some people it is. They probably think I'm dumb as fuck for not realizing how important gun rights are.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:13 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


With 12% (Republican) and 16% (Dem) in Florida (which does not close until 8pm Eastern in the panhandle, Florida looks to be leaning for Trump and Clinton.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:17 PM on March 15, 2016


Early returns coming in from Florida. No surprises so far.
posted by kyrademon at 4:18 PM on March 15, 2016


It would be a major, major upset at this point if Florida didn't go for Trump and Clinton. The interesting stuff is going to happen in Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:19 PM on March 15, 2016



Bernie is gray. The dot, I mean. He is leftmost.


Gillibrand is to the left of Warren. Can she run in 2020? She's young.
posted by zutalors! at 4:20 PM on March 15, 2016


Polls close in North Carolina and Ohio in less than ten minutes. Let the commenting begin!

posted by mmoncur (656 comments total) [remove from activity] [remove from favorites] 39 users marked this as a favorite [!]

Oh.
Hears distant sounds of sobbing MetaFilter moderators.
posted by Wordshore at 4:21 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


> With 12% (Republican) and 16% (Dem) in Florida

Where are you getting those numbers? Both WaPo and NYT are saying <2% reporting currently. Missing decimal point?
posted by Westringia F. at 4:21 PM on March 15, 2016


Among Cuyahoga Co. potential early voters, 15.6% (!) of Dems requested GOP ballots, likely to vote Kasich.

Trump is claiming
that there are ballots without his name in Florida. If true, the shit is going to hit the fan in very amusing ways.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:22 PM on March 15, 2016


Mods, when this is all over, if you're ever up in my neck of the woods, I'll buy you a beer.

Unless Trump is president, in which case I'll offer you shelter, glass trading-beads, and whatever kerosene and ammo I can spare.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:23 PM on March 15, 2016 [28 favorites]


Where are you getting those numbers? Both WaPo and NYT are saying <2>

NBC.

posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:23 PM on March 15, 2016


There are also a lot of people who just have really different priorities than me. I may think it's dumb as fuck that opposition to gun control is your number one issue, but for some people it is. They probably think I'm dumb as fuck for not realizing how important gun rights are.

Yeah, that's a good point. We can debate how similar Clinton and Sanders are on the issues, but I think the way they campaign communicates very different priorities regardless.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


We seriously need to set up a beer fund for the mods. Maybe tequila. Can we have some sort of "thank you and congratulations for surviving this" event for the mods when the election is over?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


> Trump is claiming that there are ballots without his name in Florida.

Well, none of the dem tickets have his name....
posted by Westringia F. at 4:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Gillibrand is to the left of Warren. Can she run in 2020? She's young.

Yep. She turns 50 this December.

She's one of my Senators, and replaced Clinton when she was made Secretary of State. Has a great record on many issues. Aggressively pro-choice. Gets an F from the NRA. Was pro-gay marriage. Etc., etc. I'd love to see her step up to the plate... and I am hoping that if Clinton or Sanders are elected they'll create a cabinet position for her.
posted by zarq at 4:27 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


What *are* people's favorite sites for quickly updated numbers? Lately I've been using the Guardian, which is pretty good although their little animations kind of annoy me.
posted by uosuaq at 4:27 PM on March 15, 2016


Sorry I'm late did I miss anything fun?
posted by vrakatar at 4:28 PM on March 15, 2016


How can NBC results come in so much faster than NY Times?
posted by ian1977 at 4:28 PM on March 15, 2016


Looks like a pretty big win for Clinton in Florida, but that's not necessarily indicative. If she didn't get a pretty big win there it would have been a problem for her.
posted by Justinian at 4:29 PM on March 15, 2016


Senator Gillibrand spent the day advocating for Puerto Rico with Lin-Manuel Miranda. She's okay with me.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sorry I'm late did I miss anything fun?

There was this orange guy from the tv. You'll never guess what happened next!
posted by Wordshore at 4:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


He's not a centrist. See the left-most blue dot on this chart? Hover over it.

There's a senator named 'Whitehouse'? Holy Ohio. Someone fast track him to at least a VP spot, stat! As someone asked, "How do you not vote for a guy who has govern right in his name"
posted by Apocryphon at 4:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


She's one of my Senators, and replaced Clinton when she was made Secretary of State.

Yeah, she's my Senator too and I vote for her, but I feel like Warren gets all this attention for being a lefty but both NY Senators are further left.

Haven't looked at which votes though of course.

hoping that if Clinton or Sanders are elected they'll create a cabinet position for her


Love this idea! I'm sure Clinton would, since Gillbrand took her Senate seat.
posted by zutalors! at 4:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


uosuaq: I like the NYT live results tracker, and you can click through to get detailed info on each state.
posted by adrianhon at 4:30 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


She's one of my Senators, and replaced Clinton when she was made Secretary of State.

Mine too. She's a little too establishment for my tastes, which isn't a showstopper, it's part and parcel with her coming up in the 80's and 90's. I would like Gillibrand to gain power in the Senate another cycle or two. The key cabinet posts are Liz Warren to treasury and Alan Grayson to defense..
posted by mikelieman at 4:30 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


NBC Ohio: Too early to call (Kasich leading), too early to call (Clinton leading)
North Carolina: Too close to call (Trump leading Cruz), Too early to call (Clinton leading)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:30 PM on March 15, 2016


FWIW, cortex drinks scotch.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


What's with the love for Alan Grayson I keep seeing? Dude is by all accounts a giant asshole and is literally a hedge fund manager.
posted by Justinian at 4:32 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


He's pugnacious and has the class traitor thing going for him so he's kinda like reverse-Trump.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:34 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Of the Dems who picked up Republican ballots today in Ohio, only a bit over half seem to have voted for Kasich. Many of them voted for Donald Trump. (why?)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:34 PM on March 15, 2016


Holy shit, Rubio is getting clobbered in his home state.
posted by Talez at 4:36 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Of the Dems who picked up Republican ballots today in Ohio, only a bit over half seem to have voted for Kasich. Many of them voted for Donald Trump. (why?)

Some people just want to watch the world burn.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:36 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I guess even Clinton supporters want to get a piece of that chaos election fun.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:36 PM on March 15, 2016


He should quit! Rubio should quit. He's really young, he should quit, read about climate change and women's rights and try again in a few years.
posted by zutalors! at 4:37 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Come on, Rubio is heading for another glorious second place victory.
posted by Justinian at 4:37 PM on March 15, 2016


If Rubio drops out, what happens to the 163 delegates he's picked up so far?
posted by peeedro at 4:37 PM on March 15, 2016


> How can NBC results come in so much faster than NY Times?

They're not. Looking at the numbers from NBC, WaPo, & NYT, someone -- and I think it's NBC -- is mistaken in their percentages-reporting.

Both WaPo and NBC have vote totals around ~1.1 M ballots counted right now in Fla, per party -- the vote totals are coming in at the same rate. But NBC is saying that's ~50% reporting while WaPo is saying ~15%.
posted by Westringia F. at 4:37 PM on March 15, 2016


Yeah, even if the stuff being alleged about Grayson is false (which I kind of doubt), he's said too many incendiary things to get elected to any office higher than the one he's got, in my opinion.
posted by uosuaq at 4:37 PM on March 15, 2016


As several people have pointed out, Trump's strongest supporters are registered Democrats who usually vote for Republicans. It's not at all surprising that he's pulling Democratic support in open-primary states.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Rubio drops out I think his delegates can go anywhere they want, until convention day.
posted by vrakatar at 4:38 PM on March 15, 2016


If Rubio drops out, what happens to the 163 delegates he's picked up so far?

They have to burned on the ceremonial pyre at the convention along with Rubio.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


Of the Dems who picked up Republican ballots today in Ohio, only a bit over half seem to have voted for Kasich. Many of them voted for Donald Trump. (why?)

Some think a Trump candidate will be easier for the Democrats to beat. But some - a few Democratic acquaintances amongst them - are preferring Donald to Hillary or Bernie. Their logic is ... interesting. But it's an alarm that, come next November, I would not discount Donald winning the election.
posted by Wordshore at 4:38 PM on March 15, 2016


If Rubio drops out, what happens to the 163 delegates he's picked up so far?

They're free to vote for whomever, although usually the candidate suggests an alternative.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:39 PM on March 15, 2016


Of the Dems who picked up Republican ballots today in Ohio, only a bit over half seem to have voted for Kasich. Many of them voted for Donald Trump. (why?)

I would guess it's a combination of registered Democrats who see Trump as standing up for the little guy (or are racist, or both) and actual liberals who want to see the Republican party get stuck with the monster they created. I can't honestly say I don't understand that feeling.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 4:39 PM on March 15, 2016


Open primaries should have a space for you to write "this is a joke vote" or "this is a strategy vote" like on Survivor.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


For all people knocked him for sounding like a robot in the debates, Rubio's humanity really shone through once he started getting clobbered and fought back, in his flailing, ineffectual way. I felt for the guy. I hope he never holds a significant political office again barring a dramatic reversal of his terrible positions, but perhaps the thing that kept him from being a serious contender was that he just wasn't dead enough inside.

Does Bush get the Sword of Chang back now?
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Donivaldus Octavius has defeated Marcus Antonius Rubicon in Florida. Someone better keep him away from sharp objects for the next few days.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Or euro style, you vote party not person, vast coalitions are built.
posted by vrakatar at 4:42 PM on March 15, 2016


Of the Dems who picked up Republican ballots today in Ohio, only a bit over half seem to have voted for Kasich. Many of them voted for Donald Trump. (why?)

Optimists may quite reasonably think (although who the hell knows chaos rules nothing matters) that in a Trump vs Whoever general, Trump would be easily beaten. Also, yeah, maybe they just want to burn it all (or just the GOP) down.

He should quit! Rubio should quit.

He's just today been quoted as saying he won't, which seems crazy on the face of it, with no path whatsoever to the nomination, but has led many to think the contested convention is being seriously discussed and planned for among the NotTrump GOP. Buckle up!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


For all people knocked him for sounding like a robot in the debates, Rubio's humanity really shone through once he started getting clobbered and fought back, in his flailing, ineffectual way. I felt for the guy. I hope he never holds a significant political office again barring a dramatic reversal of his terrible positions, but perhaps the thing that kept him from being a serious contender was that he just wasn't dead enough inside.

Isn't this pretty much applicable to Jeb as well? Maybe it's a Florida thing.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I know he said he won't.... but he should. And I'm still counting on him to not support Trump.

Look I'm not a Republican and can't support Rubio for any reason...but the fact that both sides (not you Stavros just generally) seem to want to beat up on him as "loser" is just part of the Trump narrative to me.
posted by zutalors! at 4:45 PM on March 15, 2016


Wow, if the NYT is right Clinton is annihilating Sanders in Ohio.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I had some empathy for Jeb too, but not being dead enough inside wasn't his problem.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:45 PM on March 15, 2016


Trump has been picking up a surprisingly high number of registered Democrats from the beginning. Don't write them off as people who are voting for him because they think he'll lose. Frankly, this is the thing that worries me the most about the possibility of his becoming the nominee. He has some kind of bizarre crossover appeal.
posted by kyrademon at 4:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]



Wow, if the NYT is right Clinton is annihilating Sanders in Ohio.


I think it's closer, less than 1% reporting.
posted by zutalors! at 4:46 PM on March 15, 2016


if the NYT is right

They're not. We were discussing how the NYT is less credible than the old Weekly World News just a little earlier.
posted by mikelieman at 4:47 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


seem to want to beat up on him as "loser" is just part of the Trump narrative to me.

it's just that he's losing so much.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:47 PM on March 15, 2016


> "Wow, if the NYT is right Clinton is annihilating Sanders in Ohio."

That's with less than 1% of the vote counted. It's probably coming from a few precincts. I'd be shocked if it stayed at those numbers.
posted by kyrademon at 4:47 PM on March 15, 2016


I know he said he won't.... but he should. And I'm still counting on him to not support Trump.

Maybe Trump will bribe him with being Secretary of the Interior for Latino Affairs like he did similarly with Carson.
posted by Talez at 4:47 PM on March 15, 2016


Now, they could get lucky and be right, but really, they're just printing what the editorial board tells them to.
posted by mikelieman at 4:47 PM on March 15, 2016


Illinois polls will be open an extra 90 minutes in many parts of the state.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:47 PM on March 15, 2016


They're not. We were discussing how the NYT is less credible than the old Weekly World News just a little earlier.

I sincerely miss WWW. I wish I could still read it while waiting in line at the grocery store. Did the saga of Bat Boy ever get an end?
posted by Sangermaine at 4:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


NYT gets their results from AP.
posted by FJT at 4:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Did the saga of Bat Boy ever get an end?

He ran for the Republican nomination as the evangelical candidate!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


> "Now, they could get lucky and be right, but really, they're just printing what the editorial board tells them to."

No, these are the actual numbers, as they come in. It's just early returns from a few precincts, so it doesn't mean much.

Be fair.
posted by kyrademon at 4:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


seem to want to beat up on him as "loser" is just part of the Trump narrative to me.

it's just that he's losing so much.


Right but he's losing to Trump Tactics. Rubio has few principles, but he does seem to have some and like he said, it seems like in this race humility is a weakness and braggadocio a virtue, which is not how public service is supposed to be.
posted by zutalors! at 4:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


...and lost.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:50 PM on March 15, 2016


Did the saga of Bat Boy ever get an end?

And that Bat Boy grew up to be...Ted Cruz.

I'm prize bull octorok...good day!
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


dammit stav
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bat Boy: The Musical
posted by mikelieman at 4:51 PM on March 15, 2016


dammit stav

Heh. Fast mover, this thread.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]



Hold Me, Bat Boy
( Original Cast Recording )
posted by mikelieman at 4:54 PM on March 15, 2016




seem to want to beat up on him as "loser" is just part of the Trump narrative to me.

it's just that he's losing so much.

Right but he's losing to Trump Tactics. Rubio has few principles, but he does seem to have some and like he said, it seems like in this race humility is a weakness and braggadocio a virtue, which is not how public service is supposed to be.
posted by zutalors! at 4:50 PM on March 15 [+] [!]


...and lost.


Yes, let's beat up the LOSERS, it'll be BYOOTIFUL. If only they could all be like Trump, they would be winners. #trump #votewinners
posted by zutalors! at 4:55 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


...and lost.

Yeah, that was meant to be an amusing coda to my Cruz-as-Batboy joke. Like I said, fast mover.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:58 PM on March 15, 2016


New Bat Boy Film!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:58 PM on March 15, 2016


Looks like Kasich will likely take Ohio, which is the scenario many were predicting would likely prevent Trump from being able to get an outright majority by the convention.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:58 PM on March 15, 2016


oh sorry Stavros

I feel like everyone forgot about Cruz this time
posted by zutalors! at 4:59 PM on March 15, 2016


So we're looking at Clinton v Nightmare Convention Chaos Granfalloon in the general, yes?
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:01 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Florida called for Trump.
posted by adrianhon at 5:01 PM on March 15, 2016


Florida called for Trump and Clinton, no surprise (and Clinton is ahead by a huge margin with 50% reporting).

Goodbye Marco...
posted by thefoxgod at 5:01 PM on March 15, 2016


Florida was just called for Trump and Clinton: AP/NYT.
posted by Westringia F. at 5:01 PM on March 15, 2016


Just because Trump is an asshat doesn't mean he can't be right sometimes. Rubio is a big loser who just lost his home state in a landslide.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:02 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Looks like Kasich will likely take Ohio, which is the scenario many were predicting would likely prevent Trump from being able to get an outright majority by the convention.

FLA went Trump, which was the other leg of that stool. It'll be tougher, but he can still do it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:02 PM on March 15, 2016


"If Hillary Clinton were smart, she'd put John Kasich on her ticket." -- Chris Matthews. wtf.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:02 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Thanks Drinky Die for saying what I couldn't quite spit out. Trump is taking away my Pollyannish belief that a large percentage of my fellow countrypeople wouldn't come out and support Hitler 2.0; he's not taking away my ability to make fun of an asshole like Rubio too.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 5:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


And Trump losing Ohio means Kasich stays in a bit longer, which actually works in Trump's favor.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:04 PM on March 15, 2016


"If Hillary Clinton were smart, she'd put John Kasich on her ticket." -- Chris Matthews. wtf.

Somebody who references past elections so much should have a better memory for who Kasich is. The politics there are not even close to compatible. This isn't a McCain and Lieberman situation.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


"If Hillary Clinton were smart, she'd put John Kasich on her ticket." -- Chris Matthews. wtf.

I heard that too roomthreeseventeen, it made me feel ill. Media center-rightism for the win. Nobody is ever allowed to call that Bush-voting jerk a liberal ever again.
posted by dialetheia at 5:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


i know this is an old refrain, but it is fucked up that any numbers get reported while polls are still open. our 24hr news cycle has ruined so much, and this might seem like small potatoes, but it pisses me off every time.
posted by nadawi at 5:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


Just because Trump is an asshat doesn't mean he can't be right sometimes.

"I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, depends on what Kasich does and whether Cruz can keep doing well in future elections (today is not particularly good for Cruz overall from what I can see, but other than Missouri these don't seem like good states for him anyway).
posted by thefoxgod at 5:07 PM on March 15, 2016


BOVE/JESSAMYN 2016
posted by Wordshore at 5:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


There was a pretty reasonable looking analysis / data simulation posted upthread which argued that Is such winning Ohio is actually good for Trump because it keeps the race from collapsing to a two person fight for a while longer.

I still think the most likely outcome regardless of tonight's results is Trump getting about 45% of delegates and MAXIMUM CHAOS at the convention.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


i know this is an old refrain, but it is fucked up that any numbers get reported while polls are still open.

I hear you, but the alternative is less reliable numbers getting reported.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:08 PM on March 15, 2016


how would hillary be able to hang onto that planned parenthood endorsement if she picked john kasich??? there's no way they'd be okay with that
posted by burgerrr at 5:08 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Like yeah, let's pair one of the biggest champions for women's rights in American history with an extreme pro-lifer. Good plan, Chris!
posted by Drinky Die at 5:08 PM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


New Bat Boy Film!

This is like the best thread in the history of elections!
posted by mikelieman at 5:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


or, i dunno, waiting the approximately 12 hours necessary to get the actual count. it's totally fucking insane and unquestionably a product of horse race 24-hour news coverage.
posted by indubitable at 5:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clinton isn't going to pick Kasich. It's a stupid idea.
posted by Justinian at 5:10 PM on March 15, 2016


And Trump losing Ohio means Kasich stays in a bit longer, which actually works in Trump's favor.

At this point, Trump's basically got a lock (or would have, in a normal year and if he weren't a monster bent on destroying his own party at the very least). Kasich winning Ohio basically just makes the possibility of a last-ditch effort to get rid of Trump at the convention somewhat viable.

But the question before Republicans is which path is going to be less destructive, to their future chances, to downticket races, to the GOP's viability as a party going forward: bend the knee to Trump, or fight to oust him at the convention, or just cut and run and form a third, trad-conservative party and leave him with the rump of a Chaos Party.

Interesting times.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:11 PM on March 15, 2016


If Clinton picked Kasich I'd vote for Trump because the Democratic Party would need to die and Trump would literally kill them.
posted by eriko at 5:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Geez people, Chris Matthews saying stupid shit isn't exactly surprising.
posted by octothorpe at 5:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


Chris Matthews is Exhibit A in the newest addition to the national mall, the Gallery of People Who Swear Up And Down That They're Liberals But They Just Are Not.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Clinton isn't going to pick Kasich. It's a stupid idea.

Yup, and Chris Matthews is a stupid pundit.
posted by dialetheia at 5:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Wow Sanders is getting crushed in Florida. I might have underestimated her net delegate advantage today.

I really can't see how Sanders has a route to the nomination now. There just aren't enough caucus and 90% white states remaining.
posted by vuron at 5:12 PM on March 15, 2016


waiting the approximately 12 hours necessary to get the actual count. it's totally fucking insane and unquestionably a product of horse race 24-hour news coverage.

Last week, I had gone to sleep early, woke up earlier ( like 4am eastern time ) and got to read it all after it settled down.

I think I'm going to close this window now, thank you for all the good 80's/90's memories about the WWN, and we'll see what's happened in the morning over coffee.
posted by mikelieman at 5:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean, why should anyone listen to a goddamn thing he has to say about politics - especially Democratic politics - if he seriously thinks that's even worth consideration? It boggles the mind.
posted by dialetheia at 5:13 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Man, heckling Rubio at his concession speech is just awful.
posted by Justinian at 5:13 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Marco is conceding Florida. He sounds happy and relieved. Was in way over his head.
posted by Lyme Drop at 5:13 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Its still quite possible for Trump to end up with <50% of the delegates. However, it seems very likely he will have the plurality, and if they don't give him the nomination I suspect his supporters will be more than a little unhappy. As much as they might not like their chances with Trump, if their goal is to elect a President then they are probably better off nominating him at that point (on the other hand, if they want to keep Trump out of the party at all costs they could spite him and basically completely throw the election).
posted by thefoxgod at 5:13 PM on March 15, 2016


Rubio's audience hates the shit out of Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:13 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm really tired of the "people are angry" narrative. Where the hell are all these angry people at midterms.
posted by zutalors! at 5:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Now Marco's supporters are shouting down a heckler à la Trump supporters.
posted by Lyme Drop at 5:14 PM on March 15, 2016


Ooh, Marco's talking.
posted by box at 5:14 PM on March 15, 2016


Anyone catch what the protester yelled?
posted by Drinky Die at 5:14 PM on March 15, 2016




Man, heckling Rubio at his concession speech is just awful.


that's what I mean, Trump "loser" narrative taking over.
posted by zutalors! at 5:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Kasich winning Ohio basically just makes the possibility of a last-ditch effort to get rid of Trump at the convention somewhat viable.

FLA would have done that. This just keeps the field divided enough for Trump to keep a plurality.

Wow Sanders is getting crushed in Florida.

Two to one is about what everyone was expecting.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Man, heckling Rubio at his concession speech is just awful.

I never felt bad for Marco until that moment.
posted by Gaz Errant at 5:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


it seems like in this race humility is a weakness and braggadocio a virtue, which is not how public service is supposed to be.

If that's not how public service is supposed to be then someone should have told the last seventy years (at least)
posted by phearlez at 5:15 PM on March 15, 2016


Geez people, Chris Matthews saying stupid shit isn't exactly surprising.

It's sort of what he does.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Now Marco's supporters are shouting down a heckler à la Trump supporters.

Not really, they didn't punch them or tell them to go to Auschwitz.
posted by zutalors! at 5:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


What is everyone watching?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:15 PM on March 15, 2016


Where the hell are all these angry people at midterms.

Remember the 2010 midterm Tea Party revolution? Thats where.

If you mean on the left, liberals don't vote in midterms (not literally true obviously, but there is a much bigger falling off on the left in non-Presidential years).
posted by thefoxgod at 5:16 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm watching a sad puppy getting kicked in the rain. Or is it Rubio's concession speech? Hard to say.
posted by Justinian at 5:16 PM on March 15, 2016


MSNBC
posted by triggerfinger at 5:16 PM on March 15, 2016


MSNBC for me.
posted by Gaz Errant at 5:16 PM on March 15, 2016


WaPo (I know, I know) is streaming Rubio's speech on its front page, too.
posted by Westringia F. at 5:17 PM on March 15, 2016


Now Marco's supporters are shouting down a heckler à la Trump supporters.

Protestors being frequent at speeches and the audience being instructed to chant to drown them out is not something new with Trump. He just attracts a lot more protesters for obvious reasons and added the part about wishing to beat them up.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


"I was elected in the tea party wave election, so you know I certainly don't prey on people's fear, anger, and frustration. Also Obamacare will kill your grandma."
posted by Drinky Die at 5:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Where the hell are all these angry people at midterms.

Remember the 2010 midterm Tea Party revolution? Thats where.

If you mean on the left, liberals don't vote in midterms (not literally true obviously, but there is a much bigger falling off on the left in non-Presidential years).


Well I think a lot of the angry trump people didn't vote in 2010.

Also it wasn't really a "teach me this fact" question, it was a question of frustration about midterms.
posted by zutalors! at 5:20 PM on March 15, 2016


If only Rubio had actually tried voting for stuff when he was a Senator, or showing up to the committees he was in!

Pathetic waste of a good looking (Latino) face, GOP fail again.
posted by Max Power at 5:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Rubio's quitting!
posted by zutalors! at 5:21 PM on March 15, 2016


Clinton/Kasich is dumb because honestly Dems don't need to build their entire strategy on winning Ohio. And even then there are better running mate options.
posted by vuron at 5:21 PM on March 15, 2016


I never felt bad for Marco until that moment.

Yeah, I thought my heart was totally closed to him and his ilk, but I have to admit that the way he is stumbling through this speech is actually giving me pangs of empathy.

And there it is! The official mention of withdrawal! What an odd journey this continues to be.
posted by youarenothere at 5:22 PM on March 15, 2016


I wonder if Clinton won people over or if Sanders lost people? Either way, these results are good for her campaign.
posted by kanewai at 5:22 PM on March 15, 2016


Rubio: "Working hard as a bartender and a maid they bought a house and retired with dignity"

Fuck you, Rubio. You know that's not possible in this day and age.
posted by Talez at 5:22 PM on March 15, 2016 [35 favorites]


"We are the descendants of go-getters!"
posted by box at 5:23 PM on March 15, 2016


Well I think a lot of the angry trump people didn't vote in 2010.

I don't know, they strike me as similar to the angry tea party people. Would be interested to see if anyone has any studies on how likely those people were to end up Trump voters. Concerns seem similar (and both had very explicit racial angles).
posted by thefoxgod at 5:24 PM on March 15, 2016


I hope Trump responds to Rubio dropping out with "Who has the bigger dick now?"
posted by Sangermaine at 5:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just shut the fuck up, Rubio. Just shut the fuck up, get off the stage and never be heard from again you hypocritical cockwit.
posted by Talez at 5:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Guys, what was that meme a while ago where they would play this sad song (I think it was from a TV show) under any sort of faux tragic event?
posted by Trochanter at 5:25 PM on March 15, 2016


Play him off, keyboard cat?
posted by youarenothere at 5:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


Donivaldus Octavius has defeated Marcus Antonius Rubicon in Florida. Someone better keep him away from sharp objects for the next few days.

From a shallow grave (aka a smoky room full of dead-eyed RNC operators), the ghostly apparition of Jebaeus Pompous Magnbush grins weakly.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wonder if Clinton won people over or if Sanders lost people? Either way, these results are good for her campaign.

Sanders wasn't expected to do much better than 2:1 in Florida, and she was expected to win NC too. The Ohio results are still really early - almost all of those initial votes are absentee/early voting from what I can tell looking at the county-by-county results. We'll see how it ends up.

Re: midterms, I have never seen a single shred of evidence that it's hard-left liberals who don't show up and vote - most evidence I can find indicates that it's less-reliable, less-partisan voters who stay home, mostly young and minority voters.
posted by dialetheia at 5:26 PM on March 15, 2016


Rubio's ending statements translated into Arabic: ALLAHU AKBAR!
posted by Talez at 5:26 PM on March 15, 2016


Marco!
posted by eriko at 5:26 PM on March 15, 2016


Rubio: "May God strengthen our eventual nominee."
posted by Westringia F. at 5:26 PM on March 15, 2016


Yeah, my point re midterms is that angry people should vote in them or I have no sympathy for angry people.
posted by zutalors! at 5:27 PM on March 15, 2016


Play him off, keyboard cat?

Walk of Life?
posted by peeedro at 5:27 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


FLA would have done that. This just keeps the field divided enough for Trump to keep a plurality.

Not sure what you mean -- there was nothing in play today that could have feasibly thwarted Trump's primary romp. I mean a loss in Florida for him might have slowed his momentum, but there's no recent point at which a loss for him in Florida seemed like a real possibility, I don't think, so it's kind of moot.

Divided GOP field or not, at this point, it's just too late for them to stop him before the convention, and so the question becomes (for the Republicans, at least) what can be done to make that convention chaos more likely to happen (and if that's what they need to do). If they'd taken the threat he represents seriously a few months back, then maybe a concerted anti-Trump faction could have emerged, but: egos and rank incompetence lost the day for them.

Fascinating to watch.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:27 PM on March 15, 2016


I wonder if Clinton won people over or if Sanders lost people? Either way, these results are good for her campaign.
She was way ahead in all of the polling in Florida. It would have been bad for her campaign if she hadn't won decisively. Having said that, I read somewhere that the AP exit polling suggested that most Democratic voters said they'd be happy with either Sanders or Clinton. I think that the internet vitriol is making people overestimate the distance that people perceive between them. I don't think that people were trying to figure out who was actually the devil: Bernie or Hillary. They either liked Hillary a little more or thought she was a little better as a candidate.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Race and Beyond: Why Young, Minority, and Low-Income Citizens Don’t Vote (from right after the 2014 midterms)
posted by dialetheia at 5:28 PM on March 15, 2016


Rubio needs this music.
posted by mmoncur at 5:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Guys, what was that meme a while ago where they would play this sad song (I think it was from a TV show) under any sort of faux tragic event?

A song, you say? (1:33)
posted by Apocryphon at 5:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just shut the fuck up, Rubio. Just shut the fuck up, get off the stage and never be heard from again you hypocritical cockwit.

Second.

Guys, what was that meme a while ago where they would play this sad song (I think it was from a TV show) under any sort of faux tragic event?

Dunno. I think this moment calls for this. Or maybe this.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:29 PM on March 15, 2016


Guys, what was that meme a while ago where they would play this sad song (I think it was from a TV show) under any sort of faux tragic event?

mmm whatcha say
posted by SugarAndSass at 5:30 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


This?
posted by infinitewindow at 5:30 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is insane. Rubio had 3x the delegates Kasich does.
posted by zarq at 5:32 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


This is insane.

CHAOS RULES
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]




Google, which is guess gets its results from AP, has called N. Carolina for Clinton (58 - 38).
posted by octothorpe at 5:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]




For people asking about whether Sanders has a plausible path to the nomination, this is the most recent spreadsheet analysis I've seen (includes Michigan). He's losing Florida by more than was penciled in here (that projection seemed pretty optimistic based purely on the age demographics), but it's not like he's completely tanking his projections. Bigger wins in New York or California, which have tons of delegates, could make up for it if he can keep momentum up. I'm reasonably sure he'll still have funding to continue through to the convention regardless of what happens.
posted by dialetheia at 5:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Makes me wonder if Rubio is about to team up (VP?) with Kasich. Which, of course, would just prolong the whole mess and help Trump. But I've realized that every Republican's goal at this point is to shoot the party in the foot, so it makes sense from that perspective.
posted by mmoncur at 5:34 PM on March 15, 2016


How were they able to call NC so early?
posted by windbox at 5:35 PM on March 15, 2016


Clinton must be crushing it.
posted by Justinian at 5:36 PM on March 15, 2016


I'm so confused, how are they able to call NC so early? Google says only 8% reported?

Exit polls.
posted by girlmightlive at 5:36 PM on March 15, 2016


The Republican Party's Descent Into Madness Is Not Limited to the Campaign Trail: In which the Freedom Caucus is still a thing.

Wow, the tea party opposes this:

The GOP budget repeals ObamaCare, shrinks the Commerce Department, strips funding from the Environmental Protection Agency, creates a pay-in structure for Medicare and give states control over the food stamps program. It would add $89 billion more in military funding than what President Obama has proposed.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:36 PM on March 15, 2016


Weirdly, the best shot for Kasich to actually win the nomination right now would be for him to win Ohio, immediately suspend his campaign, and then say, "Vote for Cruz, everybody, and see you at the contested convention!" (This will not, of course, happen, because real life doesn't work like that.)
posted by kyrademon at 5:37 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm so confused, how are they able to call NC so early? Google says only 8% reported?

In every state there are tight districts and outliers. If the outliers break unexpectedly, you can safely call the state pretty early.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:37 PM on March 15, 2016


I would not have thought, 6 months ago, that so many hopes would be pinned on Kasich.
posted by duffell at 5:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


NPR just called Ohio for Clinton.
posted by theodolite at 5:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


My God, is Bernie getting crushed today?
posted by gadget_gal at 5:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Kasich doesn't stand a chance in a contested convention. If Trump gets blocked from winning outright then it will be Romney/Bush or Bush/Romney
posted by vuron at 5:40 PM on March 15, 2016


sadsville
posted by ian1977 at 5:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is insane. Rubio had 3x the delegates Kasich does.

DELEGATES ARE FOR CLOSERS!
posted by Sangermaine at 5:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


mmm whatcha say

That was it. Thanks.
posted by Trochanter at 5:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


It feels kind of surreal for Rubio to be out of the race.
posted by delight at 5:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


gadget: Clinton is cleaning up. I don't see that Sanders has a path to the nomination after today (as I've said before) that doesn't involve crazy external events.
posted by Justinian at 5:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


NYTimes shows Ohio going to Clinton

Also Trump won every county in Florida except Miami-Dade
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:42 PM on March 15, 2016


MSNBC calls Ohio for Clinton.
posted by cooker girl at 5:42 PM on March 15, 2016


mmm whatcha say

ha I forgot about that

Dear Sister
posted by zutalors! at 5:42 PM on March 15, 2016


I heard a horrible rumor today - I'm curious what my fellow mefites think about it. It has potentially been discussed but I haven't had the time to peruse this thread in detail.

The rumor is that Democrats are voting for Trump in the open primaries in an attempt to both "guarantee" a Democratic win and destroy the Republican Party. No substantiation other than Trump's overwhelming victories in open primaries was offered (is that true?). Thoughts? The idea of it makes me sad.
posted by double bubble at 5:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah Missouri and Ohio were his best bets today. Ohio being called this early which I did not expect is major. Sanders is effectively done at this point.
posted by vuron at 5:42 PM on March 15, 2016


Thanks for that link, dialetheia. Interesting stuff
posted by zarq at 5:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


> "Kasich doesn't stand a chance in a contested convention."

I said his best shot. Which is still an infinitesimally small shot.
posted by kyrademon at 5:43 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


And Then There Were Zero (538):

A lot of what we think we know about nominations hinges on whether this argument about coordination failure was right. And it now kind of looks like it wasn’t. Walker got winnowed out during the debate stage. Bush couldn’t turn his candidacy into a significant presence in the early contests, and Rubio’s disappointing run ends with this big loss in his home state. It seems like our misfire may have been not about those candidates getting in each other’s way, but a fundamental misunderstanding about what Republican primary voters want and about the power they wield in the process.

Geez, that seemed like ages ago. I remember how everyone was thinking how formidable Walker was or how Rubio seemed to be the shiny rising star. It's amazing and surprising to look back on how wrong things have gotten.
posted by FJT at 5:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders' chances aren't dead yet.
posted by zarq at 5:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump Sanders 2016 :P
posted by ian1977 at 5:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Done" is relative for Sanders, though, to be clear. He'll continue to rack up delegates and win states through to the convention.
posted by Justinian at 5:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


If there were a musical about today, it might be called Bye Bye Bernie
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:45 PM on March 15, 2016


The rumor is that Democrats are voting for Trump in the open primaries in an attempt to both "guarantee" a Democratic win and destroy the Republican Party. No substantiation other than Trump's overwhelming victories in open primaries was offered (is that true?). Thoughts? The idea of it makes me sad.

I don't know why it makes you sad, but I'm sorry to hear it. It definitely happens, and is definitely happening, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:45 PM on March 15, 2016


> "The rumor is that Democrats are voting for Trump in the open primaries in an attempt to both 'guarantee' a Democratic win and destroy the Republican Party."

I don't believe this. I think it is, bizarrely, wishful thinking. I think the Democrats who are voting for Trump want Trump to win.
posted by kyrademon at 5:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Since the beginning of the debates I have vacillated between Clinton and Sanders. I have reasons to support both of them. Sadly that has all changed. Clinton's remarks about the Reagans' response to the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 80's have solidified my support of Sanders. I grew up in the 80's and came to political consciousness during that time. Her complete rewriting of history in praising the way the Reagans' behaved during that time is unconscionable. Her amnesia seems to be due to pandering to the Reagan lovers that also find the current crop of creeps that the Republicans are fielding horrible. Shame on you Hilary Clinton.

Until yesterday I have never registered as a Democrat despite always voting Democratic. I did this so that I can caucus here in Alaska on the 26th. The fact is, since I live in Alaska and the presidential election is always called long before our polls close, my vote counts for little. Caucusing will be the only way I will be able to have an effect in this election. Don't get me wrong, I will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic candidate, but mostly because all the Republicans are beyond repugnant and odious in every way.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 5:46 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


The rumor is that Democrats are voting for Trump in the open primaries in an attempt to both "guarantee" a Democratic win and destroy the Republican Party.
I am sure that a few Democrats are doing that. I don't think any knowledgeable person would think it was making a difference in elections.

I am really hesitant to count Bernie out, and I think we should wait for delegate counts from tonight before we reevaluate the race.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:46 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Did Trump's last minute smear against Bernie being responsible for the Chicago rally protest work?
posted by FJT at 5:47 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's the destroying the Repubkican Party part that makes me sad. I have a new appreciation for sincere debate.
posted by double bubble at 5:47 PM on March 15, 2016


I don't know why it makes you sad

I was planning on that kind of screw up the Republicans strategic vote before I was persuaded (mainly by dialethia) to support Sanders, but the reality of how dangerous Trump is has become all too clear. It's dangerous to help him get any closer to the White House, even if you believe he can't win.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Maybe it will be 4 Michigans late tonight.
posted by ian1977 at 5:48 PM on March 15, 2016


I don't believe this. I think it is, bizarrely, wishful thinking.

Huh. Well, I could be wrong. I have been before. I thought this was a well-known, generally accepted strategic thing that some people did, though...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:48 PM on March 15, 2016


I'll go vote in November, but I have no enthusiasm for Secretary Clinton. It appears that I'm in the minority on that, and I can't envision a Republican I'd actually vote for, so I guess I'll be voting for the Democrat. This is a very disappointing day for me.
posted by wintermind at 5:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


No FJT more likely is that people are backing the strongest candidate.
posted by Max Power at 5:49 PM on March 15, 2016


We always knew the Ides of March would be the nadir for Sanders supporters. And yeah, it looks like we have more ground to make up than we hoped. Still, we can soldier on.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Can we not call into doubt the validity of the democratic process? In understand that some people are going to be unhappy that their candidate is doing poorly today but can we really not try to manufacture a "stolen" election meme? There are plenty of people that for whatever reason like Clinton as a candidate and saying that the democratic process is somehow suspect because she's winning today is not cool.
posted by vuron at 5:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [28 favorites]


NC for the Republicans is close. 538 is saying there's a chance Cruz overtakes Trump there in the end.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:49 PM on March 15, 2016


"The rumor is that Democrats are voting for Trump in the open primaries in an attempt to both 'guarantee' a Democratic win and destroy the Republican Party."

This is the first primary election in a long time I've not used my indie status in MA to troll the Republican primary for the biggest garbage fire.

Having a kid changes things, I guess. It really makes you think hard about the future. I signed him up for sword fighting lessons and he's learning how to play a flamethrowing guitar and everything.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


I've defended Clinton here but I don't have enthusiasm for her either. What I have enthusiasm for is not letting a racist demagogue into the White House. Maybe it would be nice if that were not the way things are but that's what I've got.
posted by Justinian at 5:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Bernie will get my vote here in Maryland, but our primary is very late.
posted by wintermind at 5:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


>Bernie not winning makes me sad
Because Americans are the only ones that think public colleges being tuition free is idealism. PS- I a a teacher.
posted by gadget_gal at 5:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I thought this was a well-known, generally accepted strategic thing that some people did, though...
I think that a lot of people were talking about doing it in January, but as it became more clear that Trump was a viable candidate, and more clear that he's a seriously scary candidate, people have begun to have second thoughts.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton's remarks about the Reagans' response to the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 80's have solidified my support of Sanders.

Clinton wrote an apology for that and gave credit to the actual activists.

Still a horrific mistake to make, but I think the apology is important to know about.
posted by SugarAndSass at 5:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [21 favorites]


So the Republicans are down to the Guy Nobody Likes, the Guy Everyone Hates, and the Guy Nobody Knows? Party of Lincoln, ladies and gentlemen. Your Party of Lincoln.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:52 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's the destroying the Repubkican Party part that makes me sad.

Well, to be honest, the GOP is destroying itself with great alacrity this year on its own. I honestly don't think it's going to survive in anything like the form it's had since the Reagan years. It doesn't really need any help from Democrats or Independents to hurry it along, I don't think -- and like ArbitraryAndCapricious said, the strategic thing, if it's happening, is probably not making any difference.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:52 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clinton wrote an apology for that and gave credit to the actual activists.

There was a lot of nice stuff in there but at no point did she explain why she said it in the first place.
posted by dialetheia at 5:53 PM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


The current GOP would would beat Lincoln to death and spit on his corpse.

Even Reagan would be shunned as a filthy RINO.

The current GOP is completely insane.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:53 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I've defended her as well, she has some very good qualities and some very bad qualities and I can definitely understand being ambivalent about her.

But the level of false equivalency that I've seen in progressive circles regarding Clinton is truly troublesome because I don't think people realize how much worse any of the Republican options would be in comparison to Clinton. So hold your nose if you must and try to primary her in 2020 but for the sake of your fellow American don't disengage.
posted by vuron at 5:54 PM on March 15, 2016 [22 favorites]


Hmm: NBC is calling Ohio for Kasich. Not seeing anyone else being so bold at this point (he has a 9% lead with 537/8,887 precincts reporting, a margin of ~37,000 votes).
posted by Westringia F. at 5:54 PM on March 15, 2016


Hell the current gop would beat Nixon to death and spit on his corpse.
posted by ian1977 at 5:54 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


uh...she won Ohio by a LOT.
posted by zutalors! at 5:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Speculation:
We are going to see one of the ugliest, most disgusting general elections in US History.
posted by yertledaturtle at 5:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


New York Times has called Ohio for Kasich as well.
posted by kyrademon at 5:56 PM on March 15, 2016


From now on, whenever anyone says crap about Ohio being a flyover state, I'm gonna say, "Oh yeah? At least Ohio didn't go Trump on Super Tuesday."
posted by cooker girl at 5:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [30 favorites]


Update to my last comment: AP just called OH for Kasich.
posted by Westringia F. at 5:57 PM on March 15, 2016


Oof. A sweep for Clinton today?

I guess I can redirect that $15 a month from Bernie back to Public Radio.
posted by notyou at 5:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


uh...she won Ohio by a LOT.

They aren't displaying the final numbers here, remember.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I guess one good thing about Trump is that it breaks the Tea Party narrative about True Conservatives. It's clear that a very large part of the base doesn't really care about ideology and orthodoxy, despite the appearance of lockstep conformity at the top.

I wonder if that shows a way forward for more moderate conservatives who don't buy into the Real Conservative tax pledge bullshit.

It's unfortunate that that part of the base also seems to be very responsive to Trump's racist nativism...
posted by Sangermaine at 5:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


uh...she won Ohio by a LOT.
I don't think we know that yet, right? Everyone is calling her the winner, but less than 10% of precincts have reported, and we don't know by how much.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]



We are going to see one of the ugliest, most disgusting general elections in US History.


I believe in the women of this country. We will not allow Trump.
posted by zutalors! at 5:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


Clinton about to speak.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:58 PM on March 15, 2016


I just hope she throws progressives a bone and picks a Bernie-esque vp we can get excited about in 8 years.
posted by ian1977 at 5:59 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]



uh...she won Ohio by a LOT.
I don't think we know that yet, right? Everyone is calling her the winner, but less than 10% of precincts have reported, and we don't know by how much.


true I may have misread. But if they're calling it at only 10% it's probably not that close.
posted by zutalors! at 5:59 PM on March 15, 2016


From now on, whenever anyone says crap about Ohio being a flyover state, I'm gonna say, "Oh yeah? At least Ohio didn't go Trump on Super Tuesday."

I thought the states which touched the Great Lakes got special exemption from Flyover Status.
posted by Justinian at 5:59 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


If you take a look at how Nixon and Reagan campaigned (and how Reagan governed in California) it would be difficult to say that "the current GOP would beat them to death and spit on their corpses."

As has been mentioned many, many times before, the current mess the GOP is in has it's roots in Nixon's Southern Strategy.

And Reagan of course used racist dog whistles such as "welfare queens" in his campaign rhetoric.

The fact of the matter is American political culture is based on racism. This is a structural problem and Trump is just the symptom or ultimate manifestation.
posted by My Dad at 5:59 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Good news is that Anita Alvarez is getting her butt kicked.
posted by vuron at 6:02 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


Guys, I'm not so happy that Cruz has a chance in NC. If Cruz somehow overtakes Trump and manages to get the nomination, I'm terrified that the media well be like "oh, he's not so bad" compared to Trump and we'll end up with a christian dominionist in the white house.
posted by zug at 6:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


If you take a look at how Nixon and Reagan campaigned (and how Reagan governed in California) it would be difficult to say that "the current GOP would beat them to death and spit on their corpses."

I was more referring to what Reagan did in office: raised taxes several times, passed a full immigration amnesty act, and actually conducted diplomacy with the USSR, among other things. He would never pass the ideology tests that have been set up for Republicans in the last two decades. Any one of those things would get him derided as a RINO, all of them would mean he has no place in the party at all.

Lincoln also ran on basically the exact opposite of modern GOP beliefs, especially his espousing of a very strong federal government.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Cruz has no shot at winning the nomination outright and his chances of getting out of Cleveland without a shiv in his back are about zero.
posted by vuron at 6:05 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton talking about equal pay for equal work - why I want to vote for her.
posted by zutalors! at 6:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Hillary bringing the bread and butter.
posted by vrakatar at 6:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I believe in the women of this country. We will not allow Trump.
I do too. I hope you are right. That said, I don't think I will be able to stomach the disgusting stuff Trump's supporters are going to say about Clinton and women in general.

It's doubly troubling to me because on many issues I do not agree with Clinton and Third-Way politics at all. I want to be able to defend her, but how can I defend things I do not agree with politically - honestly?
posted by yertledaturtle at 6:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hillary is looking presidential.
posted by cmfletcher at 6:08 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


I wonder if the Kasich call is premature. His lead over Trump was 10% a little while ago, now it's 8%, and only 8% are reporting.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:08 PM on March 15, 2016


I've heard it before, so you're definitely not the only one, but he's only 6 years older than Clinton and 5 years older than Trump.

...and only 5 years older than Saint Ronnie Raygun was at his inauguration.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 6:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I defend the 75% of the stuff we agree on and hold on to the fact that she's still better than the GOP on the other 25%.
posted by Justinian at 6:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


I really appreciate that Clinton always includes people with disabilities when talking about equal rights. It's such a small thing to do, but it's so rare for people to do it.
posted by SugarAndSass at 6:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [49 favorites]



Hillary is looking presidential.


Her speech is like HERE'S ALL MY STUFF
posted by zutalors! at 6:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I want to be able to defend her, but how can I defend things I do not agree with politically - honestly?
My advice is to focus on the things that you do agree with, and then think longterm. Think about appointing Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United. And then focus on any downticket races that you're excited about.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


It's doubly troubling to me because on many issues I do not agree with Clinton and Third-Way politics at all. I want to be able to defend her, but how can I defend things I do not agree with politically - honestly?

I hate drone warfare. It keeps me up at night. I support Obama. YMMV.
posted by zutalors! at 6:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


I was going to send a MeMail, but I'd rather thank dialetheia publically for fighting the good fight. She's presented so much information and I appreciate it. I have never felt the need to tone police myself here as much as in the US politics threads, as a Sanders supporter. So, congratulations to HRC on her victories tonight, but please try to keep in mind that many people here really, truly believe in Sanders, for reasons that are not sexist. Which is so say, please, please, please don't gloat. We're supposed to be in this together.
posted by Ruki at 6:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [53 favorites]


we'll end up with a christian dominionist in the white house.

I cannot see any way on earth that Cruz will be the Republican nominee. And if by some CHAOS RULES happenstance he is, he will be soundly, convincingly, humiliatingly defeated in the general.

On good days, after reading stats about how many actual Republicans are (at least right now) resolutely against Trump, I feel pretty confident that he would also be crushed in the general, even assuming some Democrats lose their minds.

On good days.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:12 PM on March 15, 2016


Hillary is looking presidential.

She won't officially be my candidate until the day Sanders concedes, but I'll never deny, that more than anyone else this election season, she totally embodies whatever the nebulous definition of presidential is. I can just see it, ya know?
posted by youarenothere at 6:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


We're supposed to be in this together.

I'm not sure what your definition of gloating is, but plenty of Sanders supporters have been happy when he won. It's not gloating.

Also, several people here have already said they are voting for Trump since Sanders isn't looking good tonight. Is that faith? As a minority, it makes me really angry.
posted by zutalors! at 6:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


She probably practices in front of a mirror.
posted by Justinian at 6:14 PM on March 15, 2016


I know I would.
posted by cooker girl at 6:16 PM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


I can totally support a moritorium on football spiking. Be happy with Clinton winning but there is absolutely no need to spike the football because Sanders supporters should be welcomed with open arms.
posted by vuron at 6:16 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Rubio says he won't beat us up.
posted by ian1977 at 6:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton talking about equal pay for equal work - why I want to vote for her.

She practices what she preaches too - in salary, overall representation and leadership positions.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Now Kasich has protesters.
posted by zutalors! at 6:18 PM on March 15, 2016


She probably practices in front of a mirror.

Perhaps. I suppose I prefer effortful rhetoric, however practiced, to the other frontrunner's stream of consciousness nonsensical bile.
posted by youarenothere at 6:19 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


I have never felt the need to tone police myself here as much as in the US politics threads, as a Sanders supporter.

Well, I can sympathize. As a Clinton supporter, in the last month I've tried to avoid getting into comparisons between Sanders and Clinton and instead have mostly been trying to talk about Donald Trump. I realized that continually trying to poke holes into each other's candidates just makes me not want to vote for either.
posted by FJT at 6:19 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


This country needs supporters of Bernie Sanders now more than ever. Clinton cannot defeat genocidal racism on her own.

We all need to come together to resist this cloud of fascism brewing over our country. We all have a responsibility -- an obligation -- to fight for basic human decency.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 6:19 PM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


stavrosthewonderchicken: I cannot see any way on earth that Cruz will be the Republican nominee. And if by some CHAOS RULES happenstance he is, he will be soundly, convincingly, humiliatingly defeated in the general.

I agree. Cruz would be a scarier president as he's a True Believer, but Trump scares me more as a candidate because he says insane things in such a way that seemingly rational people nod their heads and say, "It's not forever, he's just talking about banning muslims temporarily. You know, until we figure stuff out."
posted by bluecore at 6:19 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, several people here have already said they are voting for Trump since Sanders isn't looking good tonight. Is that faith? As a minority, it makes me really angry.

I have not seen one person who is a Sanders supporter say the are going to vote for Trump on Metafilter. Do you have an example of this?
posted by yertledaturtle at 6:19 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Plenty of Sanders supporters have been happy he's won because they've said the longer he stays in the race, the more it pulls HRC to the left. I've been working all along to prevent my parents from voting for Trump. I assure you I will never vote for him. All around, we could do with less "all HRC supporters this" and "all Sanders supporters that." It's alienating all around and this race is too important for that.
posted by Ruki at 6:21 PM on March 15, 2016 [19 favorites]


Kasich is having his audition.
posted by vrakatar at 6:21 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


That was OK handling of the protesters by Kasich though
posted by Cookiebastard at 6:21 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


My advice is to focus on the things that you do agree with, and then think longterm. Think about appointing Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United. And then focus on any downticket races that you're excited about.
Thanks. Will do my best.
posted by yertledaturtle at 6:21 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


OK, so to zoom out we are looking at a 2.5 person race on the Republican side -- Trumpists vs. Cruzites with a rump 0.5 for Kasich until he drops out.

Roughly, that corresponds to two of the three major groups in the GOP: Trump representing the white-nationalist element and Cruz the standard-bearer of the Religious Right. The third group, business-friendly social moderates (the "establishment") are going to be split four ways for the next few months: some will back Kasich, some will capitulate to Trump, some will back Cruz as the only viable anti-Trump and some will reluctantly jump to the Democrats.

So the race will be narrowed and clarified. With the GOP establishment in tatters, the struggle on the right will be between conservative white evangelicals and revanchists / white nationalists.

I'm looking to his speech tonight to give some clues on how Trump is going to handle things from here. He's tried, somewhat laughably, to speak the language of evangelicals. He can't do it very well. Cruz is fluent there, as was George W. Bush. But it's a culture that's very different to the culture Trump knows, and I don't think his vulgar shtick will wear well with evangelicals. They prefer modesty and piety in a leader, and firm positions on policies important to them such as abortion, gay marriage and Israel. Trump checks none of those boxes. Cruz, albeit abrasively, does -- and he can frame himself as a persecuted prophet.

So I'm not sure whether Trump takes a continued tack of engagement with evangelicals, hoping to co-opt enough of them to rebuild the shaky GOP coalition; or if he starts to pivot toward a relative moderation on social issues combined with a continued ultra hard line on immigration / racial issues, in the hope that he can get enough independents and conservative white Democrats to cross over to him.

If the latter, I think Trump will have a hard time getting evangelicals to GOTV for him in the fall. I know that from the left-wing perspective of Metafilter the two groups look pretty similar, but in important ways they're not. Evangelicals are the GOP's ground game, the Right's version of the labor unions. And losing a grip on them spells trouble not just for Trump but also for GOP downballot races.

Or maybe this is all just hopeful thinking. A lot can happen between here and Cleveland.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:22 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Kasich is so condescending.
posted by Bistle at 6:22 PM on March 15, 2016


She won't officially be my candidate until the day Sanders concedes

I'm a Sanders supporter. I want him to run to the convention and I want him to keep the discussion on the left as long as possible. I want her to not just acknowledge the shift in the Overton window but embrace it. She'll probably win the nomination and hopefully she'll fight for what we want.

/I'm still voting for Bernie in PA cause our primaries never matter
posted by cmfletcher at 6:22 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yeah, I was just about to quote this and ask about it. Are you sure, I do not remember anyone suggesting that *they* would do this

Wait, are you sure? I have not watched this thread until just awhile ago but haven't seen this, and I really don't remember it in any other mefi thread. It sounds more like a fantasy/nightmare about what those damn Berniebros are going to do, rather than something that is happening in any real numbers.

On preview, seconding yerteldaturtle.
posted by skewed at 6:23 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Did Kasich just say "As I travel the country, and look into your hives"?
posted by cashman at 6:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I have not seen one person who is a Sanders supporter say the are going to vote for Trump on Metafilter. Do you have an example of this?

Not here, but elsewhere for sure. Reddit definitely. There's a certain type of person who cares only that their vote is "anti-establishment" and little else matters.
posted by youarenothere at 6:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I have not seen one person who is a Sanders supporter say the are going to vote for Trump on Metafilter.

Can't recall seeing this said by anyone here, either.

If anyone actually is thinking that way, though, for whatever reason: please don't.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's going to get very interesting now. Kasich winning his home state is a big spoiler for the angry yam. I don't like Kasich, don't think he's a moderate at all, but if the Repub establishment had a clue they'd be jumping behind him right now.
posted by Ber at 6:25 PM on March 15, 2016


Did Kasich just say "As I travel the country, and look into your hives"?

His human exoskeleton is breaking down!
posted by Sangermaine at 6:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


"I see your teeming, pulsating hives, brimming with the droning of workers and your mighty Queen, to whom I graciously bow. May her brood consume forever!"
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 6:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


Yep, I haven't seen any Trump voters on Metafilter (and don't expect to). There are people who will vote third party if Sanders loses though.
posted by Justinian at 6:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I implore people to listen to what some of us Torontonians have been saying since the summer. Trump reminds us a lot of Rob Ford. He's very electable in the general, and Clinton may be especially vulnerable to him. Dismiss him at your peril.

That said, is he really worse than Reagan? A man who happily dogwhistled to Southern racists that the murder of civil rights workers is a heroic defence of freedom? A demented poor man's John Wayne who joked about annihilating the world with nuclear weapons on a hot mic while president? Like Reagan, there is a serious chance President Trump would end modern human civilization through his idiot bellicosity but it's probably not greater than 4:1 or something like that.

As for the "accelerationist" theory that a Trump presidency would usher in a real leftist revolution: this is another thing that people thought about Ford. After all the nonsense that everyone outside of Toronto knows about, the supremely qualified leftist candidate for mayor and widow of Jack Layton, Olivia Chow was widely expected to romp to an easy victory. Instead, the Ford years just moved the Overton Window to the point where she was completely crushed. Now our current mayor, John Tory, is a man who if he was a fictional character would be dismissed as a ham-handed caricature, an idiot princeling of impeccable pedigree who manages to combine the sneering patrician condescension of Mitt Romney with the lugubrious fecklessness of JEB. And not only that, she came in third, also losing to the carpetbagging evil older brother of Rob Ford, a man dumber than Donald Trump, and also more of a sadistic bully and a more pathological liar. A man who when confronted about his pattern of anti-Semitic statements during the campaign lied about his wife being Jewish.

So yeah, I'm worried about all of you down there. I'm worried about all of us everywhere.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 6:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [23 favorites]


I've heard it before, so you're definitely not the only one, but he's only 6 years older than Clinton and 5 years older than Trump.

And he's fifteen years younger than my grandfather, who still chops wood for the furnace on a daily basis and was seriously considering standing for the Presidency this year on the This Is Not What I Stormed Iwo Jima For You Rat Bastards ticket. I don't see much in the actual medical histories of the candidates to suggest that we have to worry about any of them dying in office.

I was going to send a MeMail, but I'd rather thank dialetheia publically for fighting the good fight.

Christ, a thousand times this. At this stage when I want to find a good piece on Sanders I want to re-read, I open her posting history rather than going to my bookmarks bar.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [22 favorites]


For the record, there has been exactly one person in this thread who said "Well, I guess I'm voting for Trump". I don't know if they were serious.
posted by mmoncur at 6:26 PM on March 15, 2016


I have not seen one person who is a Sanders supporter say the are going to vote for Trump on Metafilter.

This may be a reference to the theoretical "Bernie or bust" crowd, who, while not actually voting for Trump, would effectively be voting for him if it ends up Clinton v. Trump.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:26 PM on March 15, 2016


I have not seen one person who is a Sanders supporter say the are going to vote for Trump on Metafilter.

Yeah, I think the worst we have is folks like me who are going to vote 3rd party or not vote, but that is a tiny number of people even here.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


There's no need to trash the other side (and I don't see much of that today, thankfully) but its normal/fine to be excited when your candidate wins. There was a lot of shouting in the other thread when Michigan was called for Sanders, and it looks like tonight is shaping up to be a bigger-than-expected night for Clinton.

(There were a couple MeFites who were saying they would abstain or vote third party if Clinton got the nomination, but no one who said they would vote for Trump that I remember).
posted by thefoxgod at 6:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I am happy Sanders ran, and I am happy he has done as well as he has, and that I got the opportunity to caucus for him—and, in some small way, to shift the party platform and national conversation back to the left.

I am also happy to support Clinton in the general election. I think she will be a fine president. (I’ll probably be frustrated with her a lot once she’s in office, but that’s true of literally anybody even remotely capable of winning a presidential election.)
posted by nicepersonality at 6:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


BREAKING: Kasich calls for increased production of Royal Jelly, demands immigrants adopt new pheromones.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 6:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


Ain't likely too many people around here will actually vote for Trump, zutalors. There are however plenty of people who will not vote for a corporatist like Clinton under any circumstances, myself included.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean even the notable few conservative voices here are disgusted beyond belief by Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:27 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


What makes Christie do it?
posted by My Dad at 6:27 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Kasich is a nurse and takes widows to dinner.
posted by Bistle at 6:27 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not going to say who but I do know one Trump supporter here a few weeks ago and I know one person that said he was a Sanders/Trump supporter here at Metafilter.
posted by FJT at 6:27 PM on March 15, 2016


Apparently Kasich is now running on a campaign of taking your elderly neighbor out to dinner.
posted by zachlipton at 6:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Not here, but elsewhere for sure. Reddit definitely. There's a certain type of person who cares only that their vote is "anti-establishment" and little else matters.

Sure I will buy that. Reddit is infested with trolls who will say anything to get a rise out of people. The claim I am disputing is one in which it was claimed that Sanders supporters on Metafilter said that they would vote for Trump.

I have not seen one Sanders supporter on Metafilter ever say this. I, of course, cannot read everything so I want an example.
posted by yertledaturtle at 6:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Missouri looks like a fairly tight race right now for both parties.
posted by kyrademon at 6:28 PM on March 15, 2016


>What makes Christie do it?

A position in the Trump administration? His political career is over if he can't get his foot in the door, nationally speaking.
posted by zug at 6:29 PM on March 15, 2016


Trump may be dominating but all my neighbors just pulled together to find someone's lost dog and SUCCEEDED, and, even better:

#BYEEEEEEEANITAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

what the heck was Kasich saying about take her out to dinner and she'll wear the dress?
posted by sallybrown at 6:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


This isn't Reddit, though. I get that those people exist, but not so much here. I guess that's my point. Don't take the rage for that type of Sander-supporters out on the Sanders-supporters here. This is a big loss tonight for us, I'm feeling genuinely sad, and it's disheartening to read comments that are calling the race for HRC right here and now. That's all. Have a great night, everyone.
posted by Ruki at 6:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


There are however plenty of people who will not vote for a corporatist like Clinton under any circumstances, myself included.

Even if those circumstances include Trump or Cruz winning, which would guarantee more corporatism, racism, and other horror?

There's more at stake than just personal feelings. Come November either the Democrat or Republican nominee will be taking the White House, and for a huge number of people who that person is will make a world of difference.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


I might not be remembering correctly or thinking there were more than I saw, but I definitely saw a comment in the last few weeks by someone who wants to vote Republican/Trump because of how much they hate Clinton and has mentioned it several times.

I don't want to dig out that comment though bc I don't want to get into a personal thing. I regret making that comment. I'm happy for Hillary but was also happy for Sanders. I do think being happy is not the same as gloating.
posted by zutalors! at 6:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


or if he starts to pivot toward a relative moderation on social issues combined with a continued ultra hard line on immigration / racial issues, in the hope that he can get enough independents and conservative white Democrats to cross over to him.

I think this is going to be the plan, as much as Trump has one. But I am growing increasingly certain that he doesn't actually have a plan, and that he's pretty much seat-of-the-pantsing this whole fucking thing to feed his ego, and leaving what little strategic thinking might be happening to his employees.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Her speech is like HERE'S ALL MY STUFF

Well, Bernie's stuff. Which is fine. Whichever way the wind blows.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Even if those circumstances include Trump or Cruz winning, which would guarantee more corporatism, racism, and other horror?

Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.
posted by Justinian at 6:30 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think this is going to be the plan, as much as Trump has one.

It probably is, but the extreme positions he had to take in order to get the nomination are going to make some great campaign ads for the Democrats.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:31 PM on March 15, 2016


Well, Bernie's stuff.

Equal pay is her stuff.
posted by zutalors! at 6:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


What the hell is Kasich talking about?
posted by Arbac at 6:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Kasich is just all over the place in this speech.
posted by cashman at 6:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


My advice is to focus on the things that you do agree with, and then think longterm. Think about appointing Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United. And then focus on any downticket races that you're excited about.

Except that the Democratic party is playing the same game with it's base wrt the SC as the Republican party is wrt it's social conservatives. The result is a largely business friendly court that is slowly rolling back the constitutional basis for the New Deal. If anything, this primary shows how Citizens United was actually truly damaging to the Republican party in that it helped make it easier for billionaires to buy their own candidates. But, look at the basically conservative candidates Obama is vetting for the court; the Clintons count on you paying attention to a couple of hot-button issues like abortion or CU, while they push an agenda that is dismantling the legal basis for regulating big business and finance.

Both parties use hot button topics to manipulate their respective bases, the real cases to pay attention to deal with the ability of government to regulate business and the Democrats are playing their base for suckers.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [20 favorites]


I don't want Sanders to get the nomination, but I'm glad he's running, and I don't necessarily want him to drop out. I think that strongly-contested primaries are good for the process, particularly when they focus on ideas and policies, which this one mostly has. I'm a little sick of feeling like Sanders supporters think I am literally a minion of Satan, but I don't bear them any ill will, and I still believe, as I always have, that we're all going to have to work together to defeat whatever shitstorm the Republicans unleash upon us.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


I am happy Sanders ran

It's not past tense yet. This was always going to be the darkest day. We don't know how the delegate count will go tonight.
posted by Trochanter at 6:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I have never felt the need to tone police myself here as much as in the US politics threads, as a Sanders supporter. So, congratulations to HRC on her victories tonight, but please try to keep in mind that many people here really, truly believe in Sanders, for reasons that are not sexist. Which is so say, please, please, please don't gloat. We're supposed to be in this together.

I totally agree with and respect this. But I also would like to add that I have felt the exact same way in pretty much every other election thread as a Clinton supporter (who also likes Sanders) where, alongside the Sanders enthusiasm has been a lot of subtly nasty gender stuff that has felt really personal at times. So I think it's good to remember that this can be difficult for a lot of us, for different reasons. That said, I'm very much on board with what you're saying.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:32 PM on March 15, 2016 [32 favorites]


Missouri looks like a fairly tight race right now for both parties.

Missouri and NC both are tightening up on the Republican side with significant votes left to count.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:32 PM on March 15, 2016


I don't want to dig out that comment though bc I don't want to get into a personal thing. I regret making that comment. I'm happy for Hillary but was also happy for Sanders. I do think being happy is not the same as gloating.

Thanks. I know who you are talking about and he is a Troll. He was not a Sanders supporter. So, please be gentle, this is a sad night for some of us here.
posted by yertledaturtle at 6:32 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Kasich is just all over the place in this speech.

Yeah...this was not great. Would have thought he would have been preparing for this moment better.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:32 PM on March 15, 2016



I totally agree with and respect this. But I also would like to add that I have felt the exact same way in pretty much every other election thread as a Clinton supporter (who also likes Sanders) where, alongside the Sanders enthusiasm has been a lot of subtly nasty gender stuff that has felt really personal at times.


Yes
posted by zutalors! at 6:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I might not be remembering correctly or thinking there were more than I saw, but I definitely saw a comment in the last few weeks by someone who wants to vote Republican/Trump and has mentioned it several times.

Eh, metafilter has more than a couple of trolls, including one long-time member who loves to antagonize the leftist echo chamber tendencies of metafilter, and this member has definitely made a few pro-trump posts (all self-consciously in the voice of a reddit Trump supporter, since he knows that we mefites tend to find that so annoying). But that's not a Sanders --> Trump post.
posted by skewed at 6:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Odds on Trump mentioning his sweep of the Northern Mariana Islands? After that, odds that trumpistas would wonder why "foreigners" could vote in a presidential primary?
posted by dhens at 6:33 PM on March 15, 2016


NYT is now showing Sanders tied at 49% with Clinton in Missouri.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:34 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why wouldn't many of those jobs just become government jobs doing many of the same things within a better system?


But what about the eight figure ceos and directors? Doesn't anyone care about them?
posted by notreally at 6:35 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders is now leading in Missouri, and Cruz is very close indeed to Trump.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:36 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


It looks like Sanders may win Missouri which would be a big morale help. I don't think it changes the delegate math but it'll keep this from being a "CLINTON SWEEP DASHES SANDERS HOPES" news cycle. And that's important from a fundraising etc perspective.
posted by Justinian at 6:37 PM on March 15, 2016


Yikes. So that is, I guess, the new Great Establishment Hope? A wet noodle with an anti-woman, anti-labor, anti-poor core. Might as well have stuck with Jeb.
posted by youarenothere at 6:37 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Well right now it seems that both Mo. and (more importantly) Il. are still winnable for Sanders, and Ohio might well be a defeat by less than 10%. In which case he will not drop out and could argue that he did better than expected (until Michigan anyway).
posted by talos at 6:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Kasich is better than Trump or Cruz but, yes, that just means he's like 86% terrible instead of 99%.
posted by Justinian at 6:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wil Wheaton ‏@wilw 22m22 minutes ago

Shaping up to be another good night for Wall Street and the military industrial complex.
posted by Trochanter at 6:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


While I have reservations about both Clinton and Sanders, I'd be happy to vote for either one. I hope Bernie stays in the race but starts to pivot toward helping Hillary win (and drawing her to the left).

I think keeping Trump and Cruz out of the White House has become a way bigger issue than anything the democrats disagree on. Some of the Clinton vs. Sanders stuff here has looked to me like people on the Titanic arguing about which side of the deck the chairs look better on. Let's focus on getting to shore.
posted by mmoncur at 6:39 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]




Wil Wheaton ‏@wilw 22m22 minutes ago

Shaping up to be another good night for Wall Street and the military industrial complex.


Yeah, it's impossible that normal, regular people want her to be President.
posted by zutalors! at 6:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [33 favorites]


Both parties use hot button topics to manipulate their respective bases, the real cases to pay attention to

How you categorize a "real case" vs. a (presumably not real?) hot button topic isn't necessarily the same way others do. Racism and sexism, are, y'know, real things to real people as well. Police violence against minorities and abortion access, just to name two critical areas in which progressive policies are being assaulted, have serious consequences and folks who weigh those issues off against the attacks on the New Deal (large chunks of which even the Republican base support, and thus have a lot of inertia and staying power) are not necessarily naive or being taken by a bait-and-switch.

I hope Bernie stays in the race but starts to pivot toward helping Hillary win (and drawing her to the left)

I don't see how him pivoting helps with that. He's been doing fine drawing her leftward just doing what he's been doing: running and talking. There's really no reason why he would stop doing either of those things, he's said he's going all the way to the convention, and the core issue for him has always been to build public support for progressive policies whether or not he actually reaches the Oval Office.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Kasich is better than Trump or Cruz but, yes, that just means he's like 86% terrible instead of 99%.

Well, maybe 94% terrible, but yeah. He's positioning himself as the compromise candidate for a contested convention, which is insanity, but bar somebody parachuting in somehow, that's a reasonable narrative.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Man, I hope Clinton sweeps!
posted by OmieWise at 6:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh good, Wil Wheaton weighed in. It's a good night for misogyny.
posted by Bistle at 6:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


Both parties use hot button topics to manipulate their respective bases, the real cases to pay attention to deal with the ability of government to regulate business and the Democrats are playing their base for suckers.

Isn't this the old "the real issue is class!" saw that gets derided here at MeFi?

Those "hot button topics" are things like gay rights or minority voting rights, things that the Court has ruled on quite recently and which the make up of the Court demonstrably affects. Gay marriage, for example, only survived by the grace of Kennedy. A conservative majority would have shut it down. Similarly, the Voting Rights Act was gutted by the Court conservatives in 2013, a liberal majority would have saved it.

Are these not real concerns? Does nothing matter in the face of the One True Cause of business regulation?

Besides, the objection is pure nonsense: Citizens United was 5-4 lead by the conservatives with none of Obama's appointees joining. A liberal majority court wouldn't have struck the law down. The current business-friendly crusade is being lead by Roberts and the conservatives and has nothing to do with Obama.

Had there been an extra liberal on the Court, none of the decisions you lament would have happened. That's what's at stake, and that's what can be secured for the next several decades if a Democrat wins.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [24 favorites]


My mom's drunk neighbor is over and is insisting that Clinton will pick Sanders or Warren as his VP and wants to bet money that he's right. This will be the easiest $5 I've ever won.
posted by mostly vowels at 6:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


In any ordinary election cycle Kasich would seem as terrible as he actually is. He only seems vaguely human when compared to Trump and Cruz.
posted by octothorpe at 6:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


Well whoever wins, it looks like toast with jam for breakfast tomorrow, Victor.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 6:43 PM on March 15, 2016


This will be the easiest $5 I've ever won.

$5 dollars? Shit, I'd put down 5 large for a bet like that.
posted by windbox at 6:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


(Kasich as compromise contested convention candidate is insanity mostly because nobody's actually voting for him thus far, basically, but the other options are so unpleasant as to make it seem somehow viable. Which, again, does not bode well for the GOP in the general election.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bistle: Oh good, Will Wheaton weighed in. It's a good night for the misogynists.

Wait, what? He seems like an alright guy, openly talking about his depression and all that. What did I miss?
posted by bluecore at 6:45 PM on March 15, 2016


ABC/NBC calling Illinois for Trump.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:45 PM on March 15, 2016


Shaping up to be another good night for Wall Street and the military industrial complex.

Yeah, it's impossible that normal, regular people want her to be President.


The comment is not about who favors her, but who she favors.
posted by tzikeh at 6:47 PM on March 15, 2016 [29 favorites]


Rubio suspends his campaign, according to TV news break-in. Hmph.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:47 PM on March 15, 2016


I hate Illinois Nazis.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:47 PM on March 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


Lincoln rolls over in his grave again.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:47 PM on March 15, 2016


lol maddow, "They're looking for more flags."
posted by Drinky Die at 6:47 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Good lord, Ted Cruz is almost incomprehensibly vile. I fear him even more than President Trump. Who would have thought Calgary could produce a politician more reprehensible than Stephen Harper? I really wish Mayor Naheed Nenshi would give him a key to the city or something to remind his cretinous base that he was born outside of the country, and also the association with a Moozlim furriner politician might do a little extra splash damage.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 6:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Watch an episode of his board game show involving women /derail.
posted by Bistle at 6:48 PM on March 15, 2016


Does anyone else suspect that, for all the bluster and bullshit, when (if) Trump wins the GOP nomination the party falls in line and supports him anyway?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


The more I listen to Kasich mention the "mentally ill" in every debate and speech, the more I realize how condescending it is. I do think he legitimately believes government should do more to help those with mental illness, which is on the whole a good thing, but he brings it up because he believes the mentally ill are the people with a "legitimate" reason to need government help, rather than everyone else who doesn't have a GOP-approved excuse for their poverty, hunger, etc... and therefore must be lazy and undeserving.

Kasich's references to the "mentally ill" are his form of "compassionate conservatism": don't worry, we'll still cut everything, but we'll have something for the crazy people.

Of course, the Clintons aren't immune here either.
posted by zachlipton at 6:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Does anyone else suspect that, for all the bluster and bullshit, when (if) Trump wins the GOP nomination the party falls in line and supports him anyway?

Almost no doubt in my mind.
posted by dhens at 6:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Does anyone else suspect that, for all the bluster and bullshit, when (if) Trump wins the GOP nomination the party falls in line and supports him anyway?

Like all authoritarians, they can be relied on to fall in line once a convincing strongman can be identified.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 6:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


My mom's drunk neighbor is over and is insisting that Clinton will pick Sanders or Warren as his VP and wants to bet money that he's right. This will be the easiest $5 I've ever won.

Yeah I would not bet on Sanders. Loyalty is a big deal for the Clintons, they aren't giving the nod to an independent who challenged her in the primary. Warren I don't think would want it.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:51 PM on March 15, 2016


$5 dollars? Shit, I'd put down 5 large for a bet like that.

I'm so confident that he's wrong that I told him I'd raise him $50 and donate it all to Planned Parenthood but he chickened out on raising the stakes that high.
posted by mostly vowels at 6:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Watch an episode of his board game show invoking women /derail.

Do you have a specific episode in mind? I remember seeing one with Felicia Day in it and they all seem to be friendly with and respectful of one another whilst having fun playing games.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 6:51 PM on March 15, 2016


Shaping up to be another good night for Wall Street and the military industrial complex.

Yeah, it's impossible that normal, regular people want her to be President.

The comment is not about who favors her, but who she favors.


So people who vote for her don't understand their own choices?

Personally I was really interested in what Sanders had to say, but there doesn't seem to be very much of it. The revolution didn't happen, and he didn't pivot from that strategy at all. That doesn't give me faith that someone can be a good President. He doesn't seem that great on women or minorities in practice. There are a lot of issues that pushed me over that line to Clinton, but I think I can think about these things on my own.
posted by zutalors! at 6:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


Wil Wheaton ‏@wilw 22m22 minutes ago

Shaping up to be another good night for Wall Street and the military industrial complex.
posted by Trochanter at 6:38 PM on March 15 [4 favorites +] [!]


Wow, so much for "We're supposed to be in this together." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by FJT at 6:53 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


Does anyone else suspect that, for all the bluster and bullshit, when (if) Trump wins the GOP nomination the party falls in line and supports him anyway?

Oh, absolutely, though I wouldn't think as much if the D were almost anyone but Hillary. You can't spend literally decades demonizing the Clintons as the end times and then suddenly pivot to even a marginal admission that they may not destroy the country. They're stuck with Trump. As you reap, so shall you etc etc
posted by youarenothere at 6:54 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bistle: Oh good, Will Wheaton weighed in. It's a good night for the misogynists.

Wait, what? He seems like an alright guy, openly talking about his depression and all that. What did I miss?


I don't know much about Wheaton or his views, but he did write a column titled Hillary Clinton, the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party

That title was the title of a Reddit post criticizing Hillary for not cedeing the race to Obama quickly enough, which he quotes, saying he's finding solace in humor. He then adds an update:

"Update: Here, let me try this one more time for the humorless and professional victims out there, who seem to have shown up in a flood today: Gender, race, sexual orientation, things that make us different that we don't choose . . . they just don't matter to me. At all. People are people and identity politics is stupid."
posted by pocketfullofrye at 6:55 PM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Not electing Trump isn't going to do jack shit to address the resurgence of increasingly violent racism in this country. Whatever you think of her candidacy, Clinton's hyper-partisan campaign compels all the enthusiasm and broad appeal of a damp towel.

Our best hope to save this country from itself is the sort of enthusiastic pro-diversity populism best exemplified by Sanders' campaign. Without that force in the election cycle I expect things will get vastly more terrifying than anything we've seen yet.

Maybe somehow the energy persists without a path to the nomination but I don't see how. If all that hopefulness skitters away into the shadowy wood I'm going in after it; I don't want to watch the first protestor to die at a Trump rally and I don't want to watch Trump turn my generation into an image of anti-speech extremism like he's already beginning to do.

No one I know wants to vote for the way things are. The alternative is to vote for chaos. This is all completely horrifying.
posted by an animate objects at 6:55 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


>Bistle: Oh good, Will Wheaton weighed in. It's a good night for the misogynists.

Wait, what? He seems like an alright guy, openly talking about his depression and all that. What did I miss?


It's just this thing people on the Left do if a generally okay person may not be sufficiently politically correct catholic.
posted by My Dad at 6:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wow, so much for "We're supposed to be in this together." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, the Sanders' supporters "losing" feels like gloating.
posted by zutalors! at 6:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


As much as respectable conservatives dislike Trump, they hate Hillary with the heat of a thousand suns and would totally fall in line and support him.
posted by octothorpe at 6:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


From Kasich's speech:
“We’ve got one more trip around Ohio this coming fall, when we will beat Hillary Clinton.”
Uhhh, my man, you coming to the convention or nah?
posted by mhum at 6:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Update: Trump DID mention Northern Mariana Islands.
posted by dhens at 6:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's one, listen to the first 30 seconds. Now let the wheaton thing die please.
posted by Bistle at 6:57 PM on March 15, 2016


Trump bragging about his Northern Marianas Islands victory more than any state is my genuinely favorite thing he's ever done
posted by theodolite at 6:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump is starting with a shoutout to the Northern Mariana Islands, thanking the governor by name. His supporters are going to be so confused.
posted by zachlipton at 6:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Whoa, hey, can y'all not quote me, twice now, in regard to something someone else on the Internet said. Because that's not cool.
posted by Ruki at 6:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh good, Trump is talking.
posted by cooker girl at 6:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump bragging about his Northern Marianas Islands victory more than any state is my genuinely favorite thing he's ever done

Yeah, I was gonna say the same thing. He was really genuinely grateful.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:59 PM on March 15, 2016


NC also called for Trump. Missouri still kind of close between Trump and Cruz.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:59 PM on March 15, 2016


"They don't understand basic math...there are four of us." I want to hear Trump explain Arrow's Theorem.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 6:59 PM on March 15, 2016


Oh good, Trump is talking.

Damn it, you just blew up my sarcasm detector. Too dry!
posted by Drinky Die at 6:59 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


If I was drinking shots whenever Trump says "Amazing," I'd be drunk already.
posted by cooker girl at 6:59 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, if he tells corporations they have to come back to the US to make their products, doesn't that sound like Communism or Socialism or something OTHER than capitalism?
posted by cooker girl at 7:01 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


There was hardly any GOP advertising in Illinois until seriously the night before the election when suddenly everything was wall-to-wall Cruz (how many Supergirl viewers are going to vote Cruz, really?). I'm not sure anyone thought they could contest it until it was too late to contest it; Kasich has had a surprisingly strong showing but had zero ground game here.

The poll showing Bernie ahead in Illinois was an online-only poll; all the more traditional polls were showing a result closer to what seems to be coming in. So while it seemed pretty clear there was a Bernie surge, I was skeptical of his ability to win Illinois based on the online-only poll and I think a lot of his supporters didn't realize the poll was online-only, I feel bad seeing them disappointed. However, I've been really surprised by the strength of his showing downstate -- not just in college towns! -- and hopefully my fellow downstate progressives are already gearing up to grab those people. (Because, I mean, really, as a downstate progressive who's active in local politics, I am seriously surprised by the depth of Sanders' support and I see some serious party development waiting to happen.)

(Most of the statehouse primary races have been breaking the way I hoped, too, so yay for that!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:02 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump has never been a free trade ideologue. He's made a lot of speeches about protectionism.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:02 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump has been running on an anti-free-market platform since day 1. It's one of the main reasons doctors the GOP hates him, along with breaking all their dog whistles in half
posted by theodolite at 7:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


MSNBC just explained why IL is still too close to call - apparently the Cook County/Chicago vote is nearly all reported already but there are a lot of votes left to count in Champaign and more rural counties that are going for Sanders, so he could still make up the difference. Looks like he's doing well in Missouri, too, widening his lead up to four points over the last hour or so. The exit polls for IL and MO show very strong youth turnout, but Ohio, not so much (though it continues to narrow there too - he's made up about 15 points over the last hour-ish).

Sanders did much better than he was doing in the south with non-white voters in IL and MO, splitting Latino voters 49-50 with Clinton and earning 30% of Black votes in IL. In MO, he got 33% of Black voters and 39% of non-white voters (too small of a sample size to break out Latinos separately).
posted by dialetheia at 7:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


If I was drinking shots whenever Trump says "Amazing," I'd be drunk already.

"Don't cry for me, I'm already dead."
posted by notyou at 7:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Sarah Palin, everybody loves her..."

OMG I CAN'T EVEN
posted by cooker girl at 7:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


The more I listen to Kasich mention the "mentally ill" in every debate and speech, the more I realize how condescending it is.

Kasich is the guy who "means well", with all the positive and negative things which that expression imply. This puts him well ahead of lots of his peers, unfortunately.
posted by Slothrup at 7:05 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]




Does anyone else suspect that, for all the bluster and bullshit, when (if) Trump wins the GOP nomination the party falls in line and supports him anyway?

It's possible, but I think too many bridges have been publicly burnt, and that Serious Republicans know that he'd be downticket poison. The calculus now in GOP circles has to be damage control, and I think this year is so wacky that they could end up flopping either way. Or more characteristically of the GOP in the past decade, a whole bunch of different ways.

I very much not hope they don't fall in line, because I think that blowing up and refactoring the GOP (and/or establishing a viable traditional-conservative third party) could be the best thing for democracy in America going forward. That may happen whether or not they bend the knee to Trump -- but we shall see.

And if I'm honest, the entertainment value of watching the GOP tear itself apart, knowing it increases a) the chances of a Democratic win in the general, b) the chances of something potentially more rational than the current GOP rising from the ashes and c) seeing Trump humiliated, something he just can't bear, well, that is not an insignificant factor for me.

On the other hand, this: Not electing Trump isn't going to do jack shit to address the resurgence of increasingly violent racism in this country.

Evil forces are being further mainstreamed by the very fact of Trump's success thus far, and that's going to get worse before it gets better, I think, regardless of whether he's defeated or not.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


It's pretty fricking close in Illinois.
posted by Trochanter at 7:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


And it's a weird map in Illinois. I've honestly never seen one quite like it, very hard to call.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:08 PM on March 15, 2016


I thought there'd be great entertainment value in watching the Republican party tear itself apart, but turns out, it just makes me sick to my stomach to see a man who literally wants to ban muslims from entering the country win any kind of election, even just a primary.
posted by skewed at 7:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [14 favorites]



Looks like the Drumpfstaffel are ready to go.


That's chilling.
posted by zutalors! at 7:09 PM on March 15, 2016


Talez: "Looks like the Drumpfstaffel are ready to go."

Holy shit. Is that real?
posted by octothorpe at 7:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]



Her speech is like HERE'S ALL MY STUFF

Well, Bernie's stuff. Which is fine. Whichever way the wind blows.


I went back the other day and read both their announcement speeches. Hers happened roughly 2.5 weeks after his. Hers is more flowery and rhetorical, his is more an outline of his positions. They are shockingly similar in priorities. Neither of them mentions criminal justice. They both mention Lily Ledbetter but she calls out women of color specifically.

If you dislike and mistrust Clinton you won't believe she means anything in her speech, but she was talking about a lot of the things Bernie was right from the start.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 7:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [26 favorites]


Nobody in the HISTORY OF POLITICS! Has had the kind of negative reporting that Trump has endured.
posted by cooker girl at 7:11 PM on March 15, 2016


I feel like a French voter in the second round of the 2002 presidential elections there, when somewhat unpopular and corrupt incumbent Jacques Chirac faced Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front in the runoff. The unofficial slogan of the people who supported Chirac in the second round was "mieux vaut l'escroc que le facho" -- "better the crook than the fascist." If Hillary wins the primaries, I'll vote for her.
posted by dhens at 7:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Yes, they're telling people to call the police if they see people who mentioned protesting on twitter.

How much do you expect them to just call the police on these folks anyway?
posted by zutalors! at 7:12 PM on March 15, 2016


Looks like the Drumpfstaffel are ready to go.

They should call themselves the Blue Shirts: just regular blue collar people coming together to stand up for America.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Nobody in the HISTORY OF POLITICS! Has had the kind of negative reporting free press that Trump has endured been gifted.
posted by Slothrup at 7:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Lastly, boy Trump sure likes the second amendment but isn't too keen on the first.
posted by cooker girl at 7:14 PM on March 15, 2016


Holy shit. Is that real?

Move over Haile, Trump is the true lion of Judah.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, it's impossible that normal, regular people want her to be President.

It's certainly possible. It's just that normal, regular people aren't her constituents. Her real constituents are her friends from the Board of Directors who gave her all that money.

If she cared about everyone, everyone would be getting healthcare.
posted by mikelieman at 7:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


That was quite the give no fucks speech. I think he's accomplished all he wanted from this run and the rest will just be gravy for him.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:15 PM on March 15, 2016


This is actually the first time I've watched a Trump speech from start to finish.

I feel like I need a shower now.
posted by cooker girl at 7:15 PM on March 15, 2016


I thought there'd be great entertainment value in watching the Republican party tear itself apart, but turns out, it just makes me sick to my stomach to see a man who literally wants to ban muslims from entering the country win any kind of election, even just a primary.

I don't disagree. It's horrifying to watch, and utterly depressing to think about. But I can't vote in America, I can't handle sustained rage and I'm not a griever, so for me, at least, laughing is the only emotional reaction that's left to keep me from losing my freaking mind. And I think there's still a glimmer of hope that all of this, painful as it is to watch from afar and even more painful as it must be to undergo as an American citizen, will make a America a better nation, eventually.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


If she cared about everyone, everyone would be getting healthcare.

You are a poor student of history if you think Hillary Clinton is the reason we don't have and can't get universal healthcare.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:17 PM on March 15, 2016 [67 favorites]



If she cared about everyone, everyone would have healthcare.


this is a very weird comment given how she fought for this in the 90s.

But hey, agree to disagree. Like I said, I was really listening to Sanders but didn't hear much of substance for me, and the constant, nasty condescension for Hillary and her supporters, many of whom are minority women, is just really unnecessary. I'm asking for basic respect that Clinton voters can think for themselves.
posted by zutalors! at 7:17 PM on March 15, 2016 [19 favorites]


Come November either the Democrat or Republican nominee will be taking the White House, and for a huge number of people who that person is will make a world of difference.

The next president of the United States is (almost certainly) going to be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Granted, not a choice between ideal candidates, but a choice that will likely have a huge impact on the direction of the country.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's certainly possible. It's just that normal, regular people aren't her constituents. Her real constituents are her friends from the Board of Directors who gave her all that money.

All in this together, everyone! Don't spike the ball, Clinton supporters!
posted by Sangermaine at 7:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [18 favorites]



Talez: "Looks like the Drumpfstaffel are ready to go."

Holy shit. Is that real?


Of course the Weimaring of 2016 would start with a twitter page. But the Drumpfstaffel seem like lambs after all:
Lions Guard does not support confrontation and brawling. There is no need to escalate into fights as long as the forces of order uphold the law against these marauders. Find these braggarts online, expose them to fellow Trump followers, and if you see them in a rally inform security. The Secret Service and Trump’s security is well paid to handle these threats once exposed.
So basically, GamerGate?
posted by dis_integration at 7:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


>You are a poor student of history if you think Hillary Clinton is the reason we don't have and can't get universal healthcare.

Agreed, but to be fair, she's refusing to fight for it this time around.
posted by zug at 7:19 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Mod note: Folks, the Bernie vs. Hillary stuff, or framing your argument in terms of the moral obligations of voters, need to stop. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [20 favorites]


So I keep checking the four big Ohio counties and very few precincts seem to have fully reported back yet. I will be surprised if Clinton maintains such a wide lead as the night goes on.
posted by mostly vowels at 7:20 PM on March 15, 2016


Hey, so, the race isn't over yet, but this is kind of an emotional night for me and family. I've mentioned before that I'm really close to the Sanders campaign, and honestly I think I've been wanting him to do well just so no one I know has to think about what their next step is. That day hasn't come and shouldn't come until the convention, but it does feel a little more real tonight.

So with that in mind, thanks for the calls for civility, and thanks for taking those calls seriously. It's really personal to some of us, and I don't mean just me.

Also, echoing the big shoutout to dialetheia for being awesome.
posted by teponaztli at 7:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


Of course the Weimaring of 2016 would start with a twitter page. But the Drumpfstaffel seem like lambs after all:

Well, of course they're not going to openly say "crack some skulls!" They'll maintain an official stance of non-violence while lamenting how unfortunate it is that members keep getting overenthusiastic and beating people up.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Three times now. Please, stop it. I don't appreciate my words being used this way. It's really the opposite of what I said.
posted by Ruki at 7:21 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


And it's a weird map in Illinois. I've honestly never seen one quite like it, very hard to call.

It doesn't look too different to the MI map to me, rural counties leaning to Sanders with strong Sanders support in college towns, the metropolis leaning to Clinton.

What strikes me as odd is how much more Ohio looks to be leaning toward Clinton. I'm not sure what to make of that, it looks like Michigan had a pretty uniform swing to Sanders when compared to its Midwestern siblings and I'm not sure why that would be.

Maybe the MI results reflect moderate Republicans pulling a Dem ballot as protest votes against Rick Snyder? That could actually explain why Sanders had higher proportions of the Democratic vote in more conservative areas (Western Michigan).
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:21 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


He'll continue to rack up delegates and win states through to the convention.

I hope not. It's fine with me if he stays in until Clinton gets enough delegates to get the nomination (preferably excluding superdelegates), but he should withdraw shortly after that. (I'm pulling for Clinton in this election, but I said the same thing about her in 2008.) I think she'll get enough delegates before the convention.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:22 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


So with that in mind, thanks for the calls for civility, and thanks for taking those calls seriously.

OK, on preview I guess you can read that more like one of those "thanks for not smoking" signs.
posted by teponaztli at 7:22 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I hope not. It's fine with me if he stays in until Clinton gets enough delegates to get the nomination (preferably excluding superdelegates), but he should withdraw shortly after that.

He's said many, many times that he is taking it to the convention and campaigning in every state.
posted by dialetheia at 7:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Universal Coverage should be a political goal of Democrats. However it's not entirely apparent this was a referendum on that but a desire to select the most electable candidate possible. The exit polling across all 5 states today had Democrats seeing Hillary as the more electable candidate by a wide margin.

Progressives should be happy with the results that Sanders has been able to generate but let's be honest the attacks on Clinton from the left need to stop because she's going to the be candidate in the General Election and for better or worse progressives if they truly believe in progressive values (rather than just being anti-establishment) need to support the candidate most likely to actually provide some level of progressive policymaking and right now Clinton looks vastly superior to Der Furor.
posted by vuron at 7:27 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


ahhh I wish there were a more granular source of results for Illinois!
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:28 PM on March 15, 2016


Wait, the Lion Guard? Like from Disney Junior?

I look forward to hearing what Doc McStuffins has to say about his health care plan.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


campaigning in every state.

(Overseas US territories look downcast, begin to slowly walk away and one kicks a pebble)
posted by FJT at 7:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I hope not. It's fine with me if he stays in until Clinton gets enough delegates to get the nomination (preferably excluding superdelegates), but he should withdraw shortly after that.

Why? He's not just doing this for the nomination, he's doing this to get progressive issues pushed further into the light. Best way to do that is to keep talking and canvassing. It's not like he won't have plenty of time to help her in the general if she gets the nomination (admittedly, that's looking significantly more like when now). He's made statements on this for months now, there's no compelling reason to break them.
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:32 PM on March 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


Universal Coverage should be a political goal of Democrats.

Both candidates support universal coverage. Hillary doesn't support single-payer, Bernie does. But many countries have universal coverage without single payer. (I am also a pro-UC, anti-single-payer proponent).
posted by thefoxgod at 7:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


let's be honest the attacks on Clinton from the left need to stop because she's going to the be candidate in the General Election

I don't think there have been many attacks in this race from the left. Criticisms, yes, but not attacks. Maybe people in the darker reaches of the internet are saying things that qualify as attacks, but pointing out that Clinton is tight with Henry "Carpet-bomb" Kissinger is not an attack.

In any case, why are people supposed to just stop criticizing her on the left because she's wrapped up the nomination? It's democracy. I voted Obama, and continued to criticize him from the left. If you want a candidate, or an official, to move in your direction, you criticize them.

And anyway, the GOP doesn't need or want help from the left in criticizing Clinton. They've got a playbook, they're going to use it no matter what we say.

I won't shut up about the flaws of any candidate or public official, ever. Least of all the one that's most likely to be in power!
posted by dis_integration at 7:34 PM on March 15, 2016 [28 favorites]


"Attacks" from the left is the only thing keeping Clinton honest. The legacy of the New Democrats is one of triangulation and concession. The fact this Sanders campaign has finally been able to exert significant political pressure on the centre from the left rather than the right is the best thing to have happened to progressive politics in the US in a long time. Calling for that to end in the name of furthering left politics makes no sense.
posted by dustyasymptotes at 7:34 PM on March 15, 2016 [44 favorites]


And honestly, you can have your cake and eat it too. If anything, if Clinton proves to be another centrist neoliberal in power, you can rally against her administration and primary her in 2020. It's just that simple.
posted by Apocryphon at 7:34 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


"ahhh I wish there were a more granular source of results for Illinois!"

You will have to do it by hand, but you can go pretty granular by going through to counties here: http://www.elections.il.gov/ElectionAuthorities/ElecAuthorityList.aspx Most counties will update PDFs with new totals as new precinct reports come in.

Based on the outstanding precincts, I don't think Bernie quite has the space to win it, I think it'll come in about 51/48 for Hillary, but, like I said, a lot of people are surprised by the support for him in (non-college-town) downstate areas, so it's possible. I just don't think there's quite the space unless those outstanding precincts are unusually strong compared to already-reporting nearby precincts. But some of those are in parts of the state where I don't pay a lot of attention to elections so I don't know their maps as well, and some of them are in places that didn't have hot statehouse races to help drive results, so it's possible.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:36 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


soooo, anyway, to talk about the elections tonight: Cruz is .6% down in Missouri with 53% of precincts reporting.
posted by skewed at 7:37 PM on March 15, 2016



I won't shut up about the flaws of any candidate or public official, ever. Least of all the one that's most likely to be in power!


Yeah, I think Obama is a great President but drones, Snowden, now encryption...boo.

I don't see any downside to dissent.
posted by zutalors! at 7:39 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


It looks most of DuPage County is still out, and I could see that being strong for Bernie. I assume that Illinois will be a functional tie, although the media always makes it sound like the big deal is the winner.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:40 PM on March 15, 2016


Fiorina introducing Cruz. Thank you for muting her in favor of commercials MSNBC.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:40 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


There is always going to be some new horror from the Republican side, Sangermaine, not a good reason to endorse Clinton's Third Way bullshit.

Yes, I'd expect the Republican party itself to fall into line and support the Trump loony parade, Ray Walston, but the Republican voters should remain fairly divided. I'd wager Clinton beats him relatively easily.

In 2020, there are respectable odds that (a) the Koch brothers find someone with broader right-wing appeal, and (b) America is really really sick of Clinton, her corporate masters, and this Third Way crap, giving reasonable odds that some Koch goon like Shrub holds the presidency for the 2020s.

I'd love it if the Republican party somehow shredded itself, like the Whigs did in 1854, making way for some larger realignment, or even political reforms to end the two party system. Initially, I'd hopped that Trump might indicate this coming along, but now I think the Koch machine can hold them together through shear financing.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


On the eve of another strong night for Trump and Clinton, I remain unsure why I keep seeing calls here and elsewhere to stop arguing about Clinton vs Sanders. The whole point of a primary is to have a months-long debate about a complex and evolving contest of ideas, not just a series of sporting-events where people discuss polls and vote margins. Nor is it that we've "already" done it, in the sense that new information is constantly appearing, and I for one learn a huge amount every week about the candidates, the history of American politics, various past and proposed bills and policies, foreign events, and lots more. Sanders and Clinton supporters here regularly post new information, new insights, new arguments, and new events that affect my views of the race. I don't know why I'm supposed to hate all this either -- it's interesting and really, really important! And I hope we don't have to stop tomorrow as Clinton moves closer to the prohibitive favorite. It's a huge boon for democracy to continue to debate these issues, and there are far, far more of them then even the vast community here or in the Democratic party could exhaust in a decade, let along a few months. This impatience to get it all over with seems to presume that information and beliefs never change, and it's just beating each other about the head. But the first-hand reports from dozens of people here -- and presumably hundreds of lurkers -- says otherwise. We're all still learning through this contest. I hope we don't have to give it up, or relegate it to unpopulated corners of the internet, as things continue. Trump may make the difference between Clinton and Sanders look small, and delegate math may make the outcome foregone, but the beautiful and complex arguments of politics are never exhausted, never a waste of time, and never already done. I hope we can keep it up, because I for one think it's great.
posted by chortly at 7:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [21 favorites]


(Also we had exciting tornadoes in Illinois tonight which is delaying some of the downstate reporting in areas that were hit, and at least a few precincts lost power right after voting closed and had to wait to count. And local news reports are all-tornado, no-election, which means even when the counties are reporting the news is slow to push it out.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh god with Rubio out I don't know what to do in the primary anymore.
posted by corb at 7:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think some Clinton supporters are kinda miffed that Bernie continues to hit at Clinton with personal attacks in his speech tonight when the reality is that he's effectively lost. I'm beginning to really wonder what message he's really trying to send because I can understand tilting at windmills but I'm not a big fan of personalizing Hillary as the personification of everything bad in politics.

I'd really like to see a post-mortem on Sanders campaign after this election cycle because there was definitely a lot of things that they did right but there was a lot of things that went really poorly for them. I kinda wonder if Sanders and Tad Devine just weren't really prepared for the groundswell of progressive support and really didn't develop comprehensive messaging until way way too late.

Personally I think a lot of the blame probably lies at Devine's feet (his track record with political campaigns is mediocre at best) but increasingly I've had concerns about just how negative the attacks have been on Hillary via proxies. It hasn't seemed like an attempt to strengthen the party.
posted by vuron at 7:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


ugh how did I miss Bernie speaking? I've been parked on MSNBC and CNN while posting I mean working on this presentation
posted by zutalors! at 7:46 PM on March 15, 2016


It's pretty foolhardy to place your trust on one person, anyway. If Trump was to drop out of the race tomorrow, he gets bored of it and declares it was a joke and declares mission accomplished in having ground Jeb's career into dust (and others'), their movement would be completely be in disarray. The anger and the discontent would still be there, but their ideals would have no one to cling to. Vicious anti-immigration policies would be once again in the hands of lip servicers and the Tom Tancredo marginal types, with no actual political way to getting enacted.

It shouldn't be so with what Sanders stands for. So what if his candidacy fails. There must be another apparatus to link his ideals to. A generation of progressive politicians at every government level to elect, a mass movement organized with the same clarity and focus that Sanders has brought us. And even if he wins, how would we keep him from making the same compromises every other Democrat has made in the last fifty years?

The movement must survive the man. Progressives must prepare to dig in for a long war.
posted by Apocryphon at 7:46 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Ugh god I can't stand the thought that Ted Cruz is even still in this. Not that I prefer Trump. I just listen to Cruz and feel deeply scared. He sends a chill down my spine.
posted by sallybrown at 7:46 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


I feel like there's going to be a musical based on the Rubio story "Son of a bartender, son of a maid..."
posted by zutalors! at 7:47 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I just listen to Cruz and feel deeply scared. He sends a chill down my spine.

I really just think about how he ate that booger on stage.
posted by zutalors! at 7:47 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sign on to the Trumpocalypse Corb. He'll crash and burn in the General election and maybe your base will have to wake up to the fact that White Males no longer get to rule the world and they'll pivot back towards being moderately progressive on social issues like they were in the good old days of Eisenhower.
posted by vuron at 7:48 PM on March 15, 2016


Sanders doesn't care at all about the party. He's only been in the party for about 15 minutes, and he did that with great reluctance. He wanted to run in the Democratic primary as an independent. He literally could not care less about what happens to the Democratic party.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


NYT now has Cruz in the lead in Missouri. I mean it's Evil vs Evil, but any loss for Trump is a victory for... something... at this stage.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Cruz just took the (tiny) lead in Missouri!
posted by Weeping_angel at 7:49 PM on March 15, 2016


Oh god with Rubio out I don't know what to do in the primary anymore.

If I were a Republican I would lie down and cry a little. No, a lot. But why can't you get behind Kasich? Sure, he'll never win in a straight delegate race, but if he's still in it he must think that there's still some game to be played at the convention. I'm surprised Rubio bowed out too. At this point, why not go all the way to Cleveland and see what happens? Except that campaigning must suck.
posted by dis_integration at 7:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


He literally could not care less about what happens to the Democratic party.

He doesn't matter. His followers do. His ideals do.
posted by Apocryphon at 7:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


ugh how did I miss Bernie speaking? I've been parked on MSNBC and CNN while posting I mean working on this presentation

Did he? I missed it too. I was assuming he was waiting to see if he could pull off a win tonight first.

Oh god with Rubio out I don't know what to do in the primary anymore.


I mean you're pretty stuck. Kasich is the least dangerous Republican left, Cruz is probably the best bet to stop Trump but...he's Ted Cruz.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Never mind, they counted a couple more votes, I guess.
posted by Weeping_angel at 7:50 PM on March 15, 2016


Sanders doesn't care at all about the party. He's only been in the party for about 15 minutes, and he did that with great reluctance. He wanted to run in the Democratic primary as an independent. He literally could not care less about what happens to the Democratic party.

This is pretty unfair, given that he's caucused as a Democrat for his entire career.
posted by dialetheia at 7:50 PM on March 15, 2016 [20 favorites]


Drinky Die, looks like a comment mentioned Bernie speaking but it does seem impossible to have missed it, since I have been watching CNN and MSNBC I mean working on this presentation
posted by zutalors! at 7:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


ugh how did I miss Bernie speaking? I've been parked on MSNBC and CNN while posting I mean working on this presentation

All Three Networks Ignored Bernie Sanders' Speech Tuesday Night, 'Standing By For Trump' (contains a link to the full speech on cspan)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [21 favorites]


I'm surprised Rubio bowed out too. At this point, why not go all the way to Cleveland and see what happens? Except that campaigning must suck.

Imagine getting on a debate stage with a guy who calls you "Little Marco" who just crushed you in a landslide in your own state. Yeah, I would drop out too.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:52 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Fuck you Ted Cruz. The only reason my son and his girlfriend have health care is because of Obamacare. You want to take that away?
posted by octothorpe at 7:52 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Cruz yacking on MSNBC a few minutes ago. Is it me, or does this guy look like the love child of Joseph McCarthy and Ayn Rand? Just couldn't resist.

Two conservative peas in a pod...
posted by WinstonJulia at 7:53 PM on March 15, 2016


There are a lot of policy positions which Clinton espouses that I deplore, but I'm still going to vote for her in the general because voting for president mostly involves choosing the least bad person. Clinton is certainly the only Republican I'd be happy to vote for in this presidential election, as a leftist. She's part of the power elite, sure, but she's progressive in some areas and would probably be a decent president.

There is more than one public office that counts. Unless you're active (voting, at least) at the state and local levels in politics, it's rather silly to complain about what an awful candidate Clinton is and how little she values the policy endeavors you want put in place. Sanders will (almost certainly) not be the nominee, but the federal executive branch is only one lever of power, albeit an important one.

If one supposes that we're going to have to choose between an old-fashioned Republican with a neoliberal twist and a vapid plutocrat (in Clinton and Trump respectively) simply because Sanders was robbed, and not because the traditional strongholds and institutions of the working class have been smashed and replaced in legislatures throughout every state, in state capitols, and in Congress, the bigger picture is being missed. Even if Sanders were elected, he couldn't unilaterally solve all the problems being created for working people and regular folks, even if we confined our consideration to Congress. Our problems are too deep, too systemic and too diverse in nature to be solved by any president alone, and that fact should be taken seriously if we're doing something other than merely complaining that the world isn't how we think it should be.
posted by clockzero at 7:54 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


Can we retroactively change Missouri to a winner-takes-all state?

Not that I really want Trump to be defeated (a contested convention is like someone else said an epic ratfucking and that's pretty anti-democratic not that party conventions are really democratic) because I really want Trump to lose badly in the general election but a contested convention where Trump and his supporters storm out and he runs as a third party candidate would be epically funny.

Clinton in a three way race with and Trump would quite honestly give the Democrats the Senate and getting a Speaker Pelosi again not a completely unlikely event.

Clinton as VP with a Speaker Pelosi and maybe a House Majority leader Schumer would be sooo fucking funny I might have to listen to some talk radio just to hear the meltdown.

posted by vuron at 7:55 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


He literally could not care less about what happens to the Democratic party.

A political party is only valuable to me insofar as it exists to further goals that I care about. The continued existence of the Democratic party in and of itself is not a goal that I care about.
posted by Slothrup at 7:55 PM on March 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


Cruz has to know that many of his claims and promises are absolute bullshit. What a turd.
posted by carmicha at 7:55 PM on March 15, 2016


CRUZ IS SO TERRIBLE
posted by zutalors! at 7:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


that's not how voting works

Except, it does. Cast a vote against, to help the opponent of a truly terrible candidate is like Voting 101.
posted by zarq at 7:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think some Clinton supporters are kinda miffed that Bernie continues to hit at Clinton with personal attacks in his speech tonight when the reality is that he's effectively lost.

What has distinguished Sanders' campaign is his unwillingness to attack Clinton in virtually any way, to say nothing of "personal attacks." I haven't listened to his speech tonight but I would be extremely surprised if there was any of that in there; it would be a radical change of tone for his campaign.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


Nothing stopped him from running as an independent. He ran as a Democrat to push the party to the left, and so that he would't undermine the eventual Democratic nominee.

I think he originally wanted to run as an independent, but decided to run as a Democrat only in order to get media coverage for things like debates and town halls. At least that's what Politico says.
posted by FJT at 7:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]



A political party is only valuable to me insofar as it exists to further goals that I care about. The continued existence of the Democratic party in and of itself is not a goal that I care about.


I agree, but I think the way our system is set up it's important. Downticket races and all.
posted by zutalors! at 7:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Here's why he literally does care about the Democratic party: he did not and will not run as an independent, so as not to be a spoiler and let the bad guys win.
posted by uosuaq at 7:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm all for criticism of particular stances, but I'm extremely wary of the kind of "burn it all to the ground/it's all rigged" rhetoric I've seen from a handful of my fellow progressives. It's true that things are broken and need to be fixed, but... I, perhaps naively, genuinely believe we can move things in a better direction if we actually focus energy on down ballot races and midterms.

If people are told that the system is rigged and the party is despicable, why on earth would they be motivated to show up to the polls for other races? We need people like Sanders encouraging progressives (particularly young progressives) to get involved in their area (joining unions, voting, campaigning, advocating) so we can build up a progressive power base. Without that base, a progressive presidential candidate, even if they could win, couldn't do much.
posted by SugarAndSass at 7:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


"Carl Diggler" is, as always, amusing.
posted by My Dad at 7:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


He literally could not care less about what happens to the Democratic party.

That is flatly untrue. Nothing stopped him from running as an independent, but he ran as a Democrat so he could pull the field of candidates to the left, and do so without undermining the eventual nominee.
posted by teponaztli at 7:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Some good news out of Chicago: Anita Alvarez, State's Attorney for Cook County, who has been widely criticized, lost big.
posted by zachlipton at 7:59 PM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


He ran as a Democrat to push the party to the left, and so that he would't undermine the eventual Democratic nominee.
He was explicitly asked whether he was a Democrat last Spring, and he said he was an independent running in the Democratic primary. It was actually kind of a thing among Democrats in Iowa. He has traditionally worked with the Democrats, but it seems to have been pretty important to him to call himself an independent. He felt like he would really debase himself if he formally affiliated himself with the party.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:59 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


he ran as a Democrat so he could pull the field of candidates to the left, and do so without undermining the eventual nominee.

I thought he ran to become President.
posted by zutalors! at 7:59 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Guy on MSNBC talking about his Missouri map, "Sorry it's not broken up by congressional district."

Yes, we can tell because the shapes aren't crazy tortured gerrymandered disasters.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:01 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is there anything creepier than the sight of Ted Cruz saying "We welcome you with open arms"?

Nope. Nopenopenope you stay away from me bad man.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:02 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


If people are told that the system is rigged and the party is despicable, why on earth would they be motivated to show up to the polls for other races?

See, but the system is rigged and the party is despicable. That's the main problem, not the rhetoric pointing it out.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


but the system is rigged and the party is despicable

"...so do nothing" makes no sense to me as a response to this.
posted by Miko at 8:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


A party is the way that those goals get promulgated though which is why Sanders ran as a Democrat. Which is why some people kinda feel some complex thoughts about Sanders joining the party in order to run for President. They might like his political stance on some issues but they also get irritated by an "outsider" coming in and telling them they way that Clinton and Obama did it was all wrong.

First past the post elections mandate to formulation of two parties at a given time. A third party is only stable for a very brief period of time as it either gets absorbed by one of the existing parties or it takes over the existing party.

What's kinda interesting is that the current Republican party thought that it had eaten and digested the Dixiecrats but it's looking more and more likely that the Republican party will effectively become the Dixiecrats.

It will be interesting to see if progressives can shape the Democratic party from inside the party structures or if Democrats will just pick and choose progressive positions that poll well.
posted by vuron at 8:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


See, but the system is rigged and the party is despicable. That's the main problem, not the rhetoric pointing it out.

But the party is made up of the people we vote into it. If we elect more progressives in down ballot races, we can change the party.
posted by SugarAndSass at 8:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


A large portion of reliable Democratic voters are not registered Democrats and identify as independents - in fact, more voters identify as independents than Democrats at this point. Alienating those voters by demanding party loyalty and treating independents as persona non grata is not a great look for the party.
posted by dialetheia at 8:05 PM on March 15, 2016 [19 favorites]


"...so do nothing" makes no sense to me as a response to this.

I do agree with that. But, eh, I'm starting to understand it as I get older. There are other ways to focus your energy if you want to make the world a better place that don't involve politics.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:05 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


There are a variety of reasons he ran. It is not necessarily a binary.

If he wanted to be a spoiler he would have done what Trump did and threatened to run on a third party ticket. He isn't going to do that as far as I know since I do not have a crystal ball. Though he has stated he won't and I trust he will keep his word.
posted by yertledaturtle at 8:06 PM on March 15, 2016


Think not of Sanders as a deity, so much as the leftist, democratic socialist equivalent of Ron Paul, who ran as a Libertarian nominee for president in 1988. They're both idealists beloved by the Internet, who used a major party as a vehicle for their own ambitions to change the system from the top. And even though Rand might have been a quiet echo of his father, the populist minarchism that Ron Paul brought into the national discourse definitely shaped the country to come.

Sanders could likewise indirectly inspire a leftist Tea Party movement. Or better yet, a rebirth of Occupy. That's the opportunity he offers progressives, not just him being the president and fixing everything.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


What's kinda interesting is that the current Republican party thought that it had eaten and digested the Dixiecrats but it's looking more and more likely that the Republican party will effectively become the Dixiecrats.

So the south WILL rise again, only out of the living body of the Republican party, like that stomach monster from Alien. And it will surely kill its host, and hopefully be killed with fire.
posted by dis_integration at 8:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Man, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard Bernie say that Clinton and Obama did everything wrong, I'd have no nickels.
posted by uosuaq at 8:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [29 favorites]


These ruling parties having barred the gates to power to all comers without the guise of a Republican or a Democrat, Donald and Bernie set out to gut the respective parties and wear the skins.

An important fact is that the plurality of voters are not part of either party.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


He doesn't matter. His followers do. His ideals do.

This sounds like a description of a martyr.
posted by OmieWise at 8:08 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I liked things like Occupy and BLM and Fight for 15 because they were group organizations that didn't/don't have a True Leader and seemed really focused on specific issues. It's the Bernie Is the Way stuff that really turns me off. I feel like everyone just wanted to fold all those issues into Sanders and that bothers me.
posted by zutalors! at 8:08 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


I keep expecting Chris Hayes to call him Bernie Sandwiches again
posted by zutalors! at 8:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


He doesn't matter. His followers do. His ideals do.

This sounds like a description of a martyr.


Just a guy, actually. Call him a point of focus.
posted by Trochanter at 8:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


He felt like he would really debase himself if he formally affiliated himself with the party.

There's a big difference between wanting to be independent of the party structure and not caring about what happens to it. I mean, I don't see how your statement contradicts anything I said. He's been an independent for decades, but he obviously cared enough about the Democratic primary to want to run in it. He's going to keep running for the same purpose, which seems to me very different from not caring about what happens if he's not the nominee.
posted by teponaztli at 8:11 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


And at the time everyone and their mom was complaining that Occupy was leaderless, amorphous, driftless, etc. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


Kasich is the least dangerous Republican left, Cruz is probably the best bet to stop Trump but...he's Ted Cruz

I'm pretty committed to getting Trump out of the race, but the best thing I can say about Cruz is that he is Hispanic and his grandmother probably deplores his Spanish as much as mine does.
posted by corb at 8:14 PM on March 15, 2016


There are several reasons the Republicans have won the overton window fight so effectively over the last few decades. Yes of course, the Clintons' simply gave it to them, which helped all the Clintons' own right-wing interests. We cannot blame the Clintons completely for wrecking the overton window though.

In part, I think Republicans have won the overton window by being willing to sabotage the "bad" Republicans, including not just primary challenges, but actually running as independents. We'd have stronger left-wing Democratic candidates if the Greens put up a better fight in more races every year.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


And at the time everyone and their mom was complaining that Occupy was leaderless, amorphous, driftless, etc. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Yeah, unfortunately we don't have a parliamentary system and we can't vote for platforms. We vote for candidates. So Bernie is The Way, or Hillary is The Way, to get A President. Of course people get excited about the candidate, because we elect the candidate, not the ideas.
posted by dis_integration at 8:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm just so happy with how Clinton did tonight. I wish it would translate into the true narrative: Sanders has no chance at the nomination. I think it's far more important to pivot to the general than it is to send a message to the Democratic party. I really like Sanders' rhetoric, but I am far more afraid of the GOP, and always have been, than I am of the Third Way. I think all one needs to know about the seriousness of the issue here can be seen by the field that the GOP put into play this year. There was not one, not one, who I would feel comfortable with in the least.
posted by OmieWise at 8:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]



This sounds like a description of a martyr.


I remember when this type of rhetorical device was used to describe Obama by his opponents.
posted by yertledaturtle at 8:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


See, but the system is rigged and the party is despicable. That's the main problem, not the rhetoric pointing it out.

Ok, we've more accurately identified the problem. What now? And keep in mind that "Well, once I see the scope of the actual problem I pretty much lose interest in thinking about it further" means the discussion is over and sort of undercuts the ostensible moral seriousness of having identified the real problem in the first place.
posted by clockzero at 8:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


And at the time everyone and their mom was complaining that Occupy was leaderless, amorphous, driftless, etc. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I wasn't.
posted by zutalors! at 8:16 PM on March 15, 2016


I liked things like Occupy and BLM and Fight for 15 because they were group organizations that didn't/don't have a True Leader and seemed really focused on specific issues. It's the Bernie Is the Way stuff that really turns me off. I feel like everyone just wanted to fold all those issues into Sanders and that bothers me.

That's understandable but...it's an election. Gotta rally around somebody.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:16 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I remember when this type of rhetorical device was used to describe Obama by his opponents.

I wasn't describing him that way, I was replying to a description of him. I believe the description was by a supporter. I don't think you can describe him as basically Obi Wan and then complain when someone points out that's what you've done.
posted by OmieWise at 8:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


My point is that I don't see Sanders! as an extension of those issues. So my support for them does not translate into support for Sanders.
posted by zutalors! at 8:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


See, but the system is rigged and the party is despicable. That's the main problem, not the rhetoric pointing it out.

Ok, we've more accurately identified the problem. What now?


Well, I'm a third party voter, so you know my answer. I also know you have very reasonable arguments against that but I do stand by my position.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:18 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think it's far more important to pivot to the general than it is to send a message to the Democratic party. I really like Sanders' rhetoric, but I am far more afraid of the GOP, and always have been, than I am of the Third Way.

I can only speak for myself, but my support for Sanders is motivated in no small part by my belief that the Democrats are stronger when they aren't trying to undermine their own positions. The whole idea of Sanders pulling people to the left was never based on an assumption that this would weaken them in the general election.
posted by teponaztli at 8:19 PM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


50.9% to 48.2% in IL. Gap is closing.
posted by Trochanter at 8:19 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Think not of Sanders as a deity, so much as the leftist, democratic socialist equivalent of Ron Paul, who ran as a Libertarian nominee for president in 1988.

Noooo, he is not Ron Paul. I disagree with this strenuously. He's done far better than Ron Paul ever did.

Sanders' campaign absolutely did grow out of the momentum from activist movements, Occupy in particular - there were regular phonebanking parties for him in Zuccotti Park this week, even, and during Occupy a lot of people actually referred to him as "the Senator from Occupy" because he was one of the only people who was positive about the movement at the time. A great deal of his early support came from Occupy folks. This is one of the first formal coalitions built from leftist activist groups (although I think his coalition has grown much broader than even he would have expected as the campaign has continued), and it's been fantastic to see all the activist movements I've supported throughout the years (anti-Iraq, Occupy, Fight for 15, etc) finally get some recognition in the party, even if the party still treated that movement with much the same hostility as they did most of those activist movements.
posted by dialetheia at 8:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [24 favorites]


Though, for what it's worth, I think BLM and Fight for 15 have been as successful as they have due to lessons learned from Occupy. BLM definitely has leaders, e.g. Deray McKesson who's now running for mayor of Baltimore -- but they've been intentional about not centering around one particular personality. And both BLM and Fight for 15 have worked hard to unify around actionable goals / demands as opposed to Occupy's hyper-democratic, freewheeling structure which rendered it basically unable to express anything resembling a coherent policy ask.

Those are all movements which wanted to influence policy broadly, though. Whereas the Sanders movement has been by definition centered on a particular person who is seeking a particular office.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


And at the time everyone and their mom was complaining that Occupy was leaderless, amorphous, driftless, etc. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Well, pretty much all of human politics has been dominated by the conflict between centralists and federalists. Or maybe I'm just thinking of Latin America.

I'm saying that once the election is over, we need to rally around what the person believes in, not just give up hope because that person lost. We need to begin laying down the groundwork so the next great candidate can show up, and this time he or she will be empowered by a stronger political organization.

Does this sound dispensationalist? Maybe a little. But the core of this message is that we don't need a progressive messiah; we need to keep striving even if the savior of the moment loses or sells out.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


My point is that I don't see Sanders! as an extension of those issues. So my support for them does not translate into support for Sanders.

Not an extension of BLM I agree. Of Occupy? I think he clearly took that torch and is running with it with the support of the sort of people who lit it. I would be interested in hearing why you believe differently if you would like to elaborate.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:21 PM on March 15, 2016


Alienating those voters by demanding party loyalty and treating independents as persona non grata is not a great look for the party.

Well, I agree, but if the Party caters to these independents they should show loyalty. It's kind of how it works. Or else what incentive does the Party have to do what the independents want, right?
posted by FJT at 8:23 PM on March 15, 2016


Is there anything creepier than the sight of Ted Cruz saying "We welcome you with open arms"?

There's a meme for that.
posted by My Dad at 8:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Or else what incentive does the Party have to do what the independents want, right?

The incentive is winning elections.
posted by yertledaturtle at 8:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Well, I'm a third party voter, so you know my answer. I also know you have very reasonable arguments against that but I do stand by my position.

I wouldn't argue against that, actually, partially because I suspect we do probably agree on a lot of important issues and I'm tired of critiquing my substantive allies instead of supporting them. What I can't abide is the person who cares enough about power and justice to think critically about politics and take bold public positions, and mostly rhetorical ones, but not quite enough to participate.
posted by clockzero at 8:25 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Or else what incentive does the Party have to do what the independents want, right?

How about their votes, their money, and their energy? Loyalty doesn't enter into it. And it's going to be an increasingly large problem for Democrats who rely on party loyalty, because fully 48% of millennials are registered independents. Of course they still lean Democratic, and their views are much more liberal even than party faithful for the most part, but party loyalty is an increasingly losing argument in an increasingly independent electorate. People just do not support the party system as much anymore.
posted by dialetheia at 8:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


> Republicans have known for years they can't be fully honest about their agenda -- see Lee Atwater's famous confession about racial dogwhistles, among other things --

> As has been mentioned many, many times before, the current mess the GOP is in has it's roots in Nixon's Southern Strategy.


Related thread.
posted by homunculus at 8:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm a lifelong registered Democrat (while, lifelong starting at 18), but honestly the only thing that keeps me voting (D) is opposition to the Republican party. I think a lot of what looks like party loyalty is really just opposition to a worse alternative.
posted by teponaztli at 8:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [19 favorites]



Not an extension of BLM I agree. Of Occupy? I think he clearly took that torch and is running with it with the support of the sort of people who lit it. I would be interested in hearing why you believe differently if you would like to elaborate.


I said this before, but I would have been more interested if he were further left. I feel like he is running sort of weaksauce left of Hillary and his outreach to minorities and women seems really perfunctory. His campaign just seems like a hodgepodge of things, and his answer to everything seems to be that he'll get his revolution. I think it's one thing for BLM and Occupy people to support a revolution, but for a major Presidential party candidate to do that, and for the revolution to really mean voting for downticket people that he doesn't really ever seem to mention...it just didn't all come together for me.
posted by zutalors! at 8:30 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trochanter: "50.9% to 48.2% in IL. Gap is closing."

When the vote is that close it doesn't really matter who "wins". The delegates will be allocated pretty much the same either way.
posted by octothorpe at 8:31 PM on March 15, 2016



I'm a lifelong registered Democrat (while, lifelong starting at 18), but honestly the only thing that keeps me voting (D) is opposition to the Republican party. I think a lot of what looks like party loyalty is really just opposition to a worse alternative.


I mean, I did that when I voted for Kerry.
posted by zutalors! at 8:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm saying that once the election is over, we need to rally around what the person believes in, not just give up hope because that person lost.

Absolutely. I'll be voting for Jill Stein this fall as I did four years ago; if I lived in a swing state I would cheerfully vote for Hillary Clinton. Well, not super cheerfully. But resolutely, I guess. I feel that in Illinois, my vote for President is more valuable as a marker to the Democratic Party here that there is space to the left than to help run up their margin of victory.

I will happily be voting for Tammy Duckworth to kick Mark Kirk out of the Senate. Downballot races will be a mix of Green votes and votes for progressive Dems.

I don't identify as a Democrat and my goal in the ballot box isn't to further the Democratic Party's electoral fortunes. I'm happy to help Dems out, though, when things are close and/or when they're running candidates that I think are doing / will do a good job.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:32 PM on March 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


Huh, funny. My initial reticence to support him was because I find him too much of a leftist for my tastes. Thanks for explaining. I guess his campaign just hit a sweet spot on the left somewhere between how we see the world.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:32 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


No problem!
posted by zutalors! at 8:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Interesting conversation by one of my few remaining conservative friends on FB. She linked earlier to a piece in Christianity Today advocating for Christians to vote third-party to avoid the Trump/Hilary choice. One of her conservative friends chimed in that that would just *help* Trump win, while I'm thinking, no, that will actually help Hilary, you might as well vote for her.

Don't know how many conservative Christians will still feel that way in November. Trump is more blatantly religiously illiterate than the rest, but of course I'm sure he'll find surrogates to attest to his religiosity and learn some new catchphrases,
posted by emjaybee at 8:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


When the vote is that close it doesn't really matter who "wins". The delegates will be allocated pretty much the same either way.

Yeah, it's just that they called it for Hillary four hours ago.
posted by Trochanter at 8:33 PM on March 15, 2016


The reality is that the Democratic party feels like it's got a proven winner of a strategy which is keep Whites from voting more than 60-65% Republican and pulling significant majorities with every other demographic.

This is the coalition that won two elections for Obama and looks primed to win an election for Clinton. The people running Clinton's campaign are truly the best and brightest from both Clinton '08 and Obama '08 and '12. These people know how to win elections and they are going to microsegment the electorate and play moneyball (the baseball strategy) with the system until the Republicans can come up with an effective counter.

To think that Democrats were going to wholesale abandon the strategies that got Obama 8 years in office is delusional. Yes Democrats need to improve their messaging vis-a-vis the millenial voter because they are a massive demographic that is going to have a massive impact on politics for decades to come.

Personally I think it's great that so many Millenials are coming out so much for progressive politicians because most research has shown that the political parties you support in your first election tend to influence your voting patterns for the rest of your life and having millenials be overwhelmingly liberal and progressive in their politics is a very good future indeed.

I don't mind if Sanders wants to keep campaigning until the convention but I hope that he'll shift from attacking Clinton to attacking Trump because he's the real enemy.
posted by vuron at 8:34 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


I mean, I did that when I voted for Kerry.

Ugh, don't remind me...

This is an aside, but true story, I met Kerry not long after the 2004 election and he was the pander-iest panderer I've ever met. He was all "hey man!" with me, and somehow it came up that I play guitar, so then he was all "we should jam sometime!" It was the fakest experience I've ever had, and the whole time I was just thinking "I cannot believe we thought this guy had a chance."
posted by teponaztli at 8:36 PM on March 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


There is a difference between "attacking" (which would be something like pointing out the vast conflicts of interest we're going to start hearing about w/r/t the Clinton Foundation and her time at State) and pointing out facts about her policies. Substantive criticism is fine and I resent the hell out of implications that criticizing Clinton from the left should be off-limits. If you don't like it, fine, don't do it, but people do not have some moral duty to be silent about substantive policy and background differences. His path to the nomination is tough but it's not impossible and I hope he keeps playing to win.
posted by dialetheia at 8:37 PM on March 15, 2016 [34 favorites]


And the crazy thing is that Edwards is that he was so fake that Kerry was creeped out by him. And even crazier, Edwards was pretty populist as far as Democratic front runners went, at least in this generation.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Don't know how many conservative Christians will still feel that way in November. Trump is more blatantly religiously illiterate than the rest, but of course I'm sure he'll find surrogates to attest to his religiosity and learn some new catchphrases,

I don't know that the main problem is that he can't speak the evangelical language, it's more that he's been publicly pro-choice for much of his life. If I was Ted Cruz, I would be campaigning on nothing else right now. There is zero reason to trust, from a pro-lifer's perspective, that Trump would use abortion as a litmus test if he was nominating a Justice.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yes Democrats need to improve their messaging vis-a-vis the millenial voter because they are a massive demographic that is going to have a massive impact on politics for decades to come.

They don't need to improve their messaging. They need to improve their policies. Millennials are tired of eating the shit that flows down from Capitol hill into our over-indebted, won't-ever-own-a-home, used-car, still-waiting-tables-at-30 lives.
posted by dis_integration at 8:39 PM on March 15, 2016 [33 favorites]


Kerry for all his faux bro-ness does seem like a pretty awesome Secretary of State. I kind of want him to remain at State assuming Clinton wins in November because he seems like he's got a fuckton of irons in the fire and I'd hate to see them get screwed up for no reason. Plus I can't see anyone else really being a better fit.
posted by vuron at 8:39 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, it's just that they called it for Hillary four hours ago.

I'm watching MSNBC and they've called FL, NC and OH, but IL has been too close to call all night.
posted by chris24 at 8:39 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


He was all "hey man!" with me, and somehow it came up that I play guitar, so then he was all "we should jam sometime!" It was the fakest experience I've ever had, and the whole time I was just thinking "I cannot believe we thought this guy had a chance."

So did you end up jamming with Kerry? That sounds like a great awkward time.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:39 PM on March 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


TFW you realize the blue isn't nearly as left as you thought it was.
posted by symbioid at 8:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


They don't need to improve their messaging. They need to improve their policies.

This 1000x. One of the most effective things Sanders did to win Millennial voters was refusing to insult their intelligence by acting like a couple of cameos by the right celebrities or saying the right sequence of focus-group-tested words would win their votes.
posted by dialetheia at 8:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [18 favorites]




Homunuclus, additionally and don't forget Gingrich's Contract On America and that pitiful Turd Blossom.

They broke it for fun and profit. Good luck putting it back together.

The "Establishment GOP" isn't the establishment at all - they threw the old Rockefeller Repubs out, done, gone Gone With The Dole and McCain... This was going to be the scorched earth conservative's time. Triumphant, all we need is someone even further to the right. Oh yeah.

The so called Establishment Repubs are pissed because the Rockefeller Repubs, in the guise of Trump, have decided to try to take the party back after the above mentioned broke it (Atwater included). Good luck with that too.
posted by WinstonJulia at 8:42 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Remember that time Kerry played Van Halen as his closing song at the Democratic National Convention? Yeah bro!!!
posted by sallybrown at 8:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


The one thing you can say about Edwards was his focus on two Americas, poverty, and the working class was ahead of the game. If he wasn't revealed to be a total scumbag, he could have done well running on that message this year.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I liked things like Occupy and BLM and Fight for 15 because they were group organizations that didn't/don't have a True Leader and seemed really focused on specific issues. It's the Bernie Is the Way stuff that really turns me off. I feel like everyone just wanted to fold all those issues into Sanders and that bothers me.

I see no evidence that agitating for Sanders is pulling attention away from these groups. If anything, the success of the Sanders campaign comes from engaging people who have not been previously involved in politics. Reddit is a cesspit with many resentful Sanders/Trump/or bust users, but I've noticed just as many asking about downticket races and how to stay involved with the causes Sanders champions after this election is over.

Granted, I also found the responses on the main Sanders subreddit to the Chicago Trump protests last week very disheartening (just as I found Clinton's initial equivocating admonishments to the protesters) so I'm not sure whether that demographic's support for Sanders would also translate to longer term, meaningful support for Black Lives Matter. Nevertheless, economic justice can't happen without social justice and vice versa so I'm just glad that there is some coherence in both being addressed together in both campaigns and that Clinton has thankfully pulled back from that weird pivot a few weeks ago that tried to make it a wedge issues by pitting economic populism against identity politics.
posted by dustyasymptotes at 8:46 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


TFW you realize the blue isn't nearly as left as you thought it was.

How left could it really be without this sort of rhetoric, after all?
posted by clockzero at 8:46 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump is more blatantly religiously illiterate than the rest, but of course I'm sure he'll find surrogates to attest to his religiosity and learn some new catchphrases

As I noted upthread, I think the evangelical vote will be a tough nut for Trump to crack.

Additionally, evangelicalism ain't what it was in the 80s. Millennial evangelicals are, naturally, still more conservative than their non-evangelical counterparts. But a lot of them are much more concerned about environmentalism, anti-poverty work and so on, and are at least open to talking about abortion and gay marriage.

Lots of my evangelical friends came to my (gay) wedding.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:47 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]



TFW you realize the blue isn't nearly as left as you thought it was.


Because of Kerry?
posted by zutalors! at 8:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Remember that time Kerry played Van Halen as his closing song at the Democratic National Convention? Yeah bro!!!

I like to imagine that teponaztli forgot about the Kerry meeting, but a few months later one Sunday afternoon they get a knock on their door, and when they open there's Kerry in a The Who t-shirt, pressed jeans, and a blazer holding a case of Sam Adams with three Secret Service agents behind him holding guitar equipment.

teponaztli lets them in and they jam for a while, mostly classic rock with a couple of attempts at newer stuff. It's an enjoyable time but kind of off, like hanging out with one of your Dad's friends without your Dad, plus you keep glancing at the Secret Service guys standing like statues in the corners of the room.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


His path to the nomination is tough but it's not impossible and I hope he keeps playing to win.

His path is impossible (for any value of possible that is not actually, impossible). Please show your work if you say it isn't.
posted by OmieWise at 8:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Has there ever been the slightest indication that Edwards actually believed his messaging? Man he always seemed like the least sincere candidate the Democrats have but up in ages. He makes someone like Romney look sincere and earnest.
posted by vuron at 8:49 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


There is zero reason to trust, from a pro-lifer's perspective, that Trump would use abortion as a litmus test if he was nominating a Justice.

One lady sitting next to each other in a TrumpCamp: "Hey, we're all being shot tomorrow, but at least they're not asking us if we're pregnant first!"

... Not a comfort.
posted by corb at 8:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's an enjoyable time but kind of off

Or you're two bars in and you're like, "Oh god. This guy plays guitar like Clinton plays sax."
posted by Trochanter at 8:52 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh jeez.

Bill Clinton: Sanders is the 'blame candidate'(TheHill)


God God.

JUST IGNORE HIM, IDIOT. YOURE GOING TO WIN ANYWAY, AND YOU'RE DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD.

She really can't help it. What stupid thing is she going to next?
posted by Artw at 8:52 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


*shrug* I believed, and believe he was sincere. Scumbag in some ways doesn't mean scumbag in all ways. Human beings are a weird ass species.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:52 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Please show your work if you say it isn't.

Sure, here you go. I linked to it upthread too. He would need to win a bigger margin than 54% in California now that he lost more delegates than expected in OH and FL, but it's not out of the question - the map is much more favorable for him from this point on, although he would still have to win by some big margins (much like Obama did in western caucus states).
posted by dialetheia at 8:53 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I love open primaries!
posted by clavdivs at 8:53 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Looks like the Drumpfstaffel are ready to go.

So, it can happen here?
posted by fuse theorem at 8:53 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Just please load Bill onto a plane and send him circling the planet for the next few months, thanks.
posted by sallybrown at 8:53 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


If Trump wants to win-- and I say If because I have no idea what is in Trump's brain-- he'll pick some kind of evangelical bigwig as his running mate. The evangelical will think he's "saving America" by adding God to Trump's ticket, it will give all of the religious right permission to vote Trump, and we'll be in serious trouble.
posted by mmoncur at 8:55 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


ChurchHatesTucker: "If Rubio drops out, what happens to the 163 delegates he's picked up so far?

They're free to vote for whomever, although usually the candidate suggests an alternative.
"

It's actually considerably more complex than that.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


TFW you realize the blue isn't nearly as left as you thought it was.

The blue has evolved a lot over the past 15 years since I signed up for my account. It was actually pretty much right in the middle when I joined. There were a lot more right wing members back then - if I remember correctly. It has drifted a lot to the left over the last few years. Which I am very happy about!
posted by yertledaturtle at 8:57 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think BLM and Fight for 15 have been as successful as they have due to lessons learned from Occupy.

I see BLM as pretty distinct from Occupy, especially if we're talking about the specific organization Black Lives Matter as opposed to the larger movement (which lately I've seen referred to as the Movement for Black Lives to help distinguish it). Just, I wouldn't say the movement took lessons from Occupy as much as it came up with a different and somewhat more effective way of organizing on its own.
posted by sallybrown at 8:58 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


*shrug* I believed, and believe he was sincere. Scumbag in some ways doesn't mean scumbag in all ways. Human beings are a weird ass species.

Yeah, Edwards was a scoundrel, and I feel like a jerk just for thinking good thoughts about him in '04. But he was also a legit plaintiffs attorney who took on big corporations for their defective products. I mean sure, he did it for the money, and the glory and fame. But he also did good. And sure, plaintiffs attorneys get a bad rap (although mostly I think that's because corporations hate them, not because they're all ambulance chasing sleazeballs), but in a democracy that has basically abandoned effective regulation of commerce, plaintiffs attorneys are about all we've got. And they certainly aren't taking the easy path in law. So I think he must've believed some of his bullshit.

Also he was really good looking.
posted by dis_integration at 8:59 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Further, as far as calls to drop out, party politics isn't just about who wins - this is as much about a display of solidarity and strength on the left as it is about winning the nomination. The more delegates he has, the more influence he has over the platform and the more likely Clinton is to consider his base when choosing her VP. The more states he campaigns in, the more he's able to continue making the argument for real left policies and build a real left movement within the Democratic party to provide meaningful resistance when Clinton pivots right for the general and during her presidency should she be elected. I am very glad he's continuing to the convention.
posted by dialetheia at 9:00 PM on March 15, 2016 [26 favorites]


Just please load Bill onto a plane and send him circling the planet for the next few months, thanks.
posted by sallybrown at 8:53 PM on March 15 [3 favorites +] [!]

Oh I forgot to say please make sure it's not Jeffrey Epstein's sex and/or rape plane thanks
posted by sallybrown at 9:00 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sure, here you go. I linked to it upthread too. He would need to win a bigger margin than 54% in California now that he lost more delegates than expected in OH and FL, but it's not out of the question - the map is much more favorable for him from this point on, although he would still have to win by some big margins (much like Obama did in western caucus states).

I may be missing something, but that Jacobin chart shows Sanders needing to win every state from here on out. (PR and DC excepted, of course. They aren't states.) Current polling at, for instance, 538, doesn't show him being anywhere near being able to do that. Other than "the polls will change, he'll close it up," is there something I'm missing.
posted by OmieWise at 9:01 PM on March 15, 2016


Oh I forgot to say please make sure it's not Jeffrey Epstein's sex and/or rape plane thanks

Oh god, I am absolutely dreading what a liability he's going to be in the general. And when was the last time Bill was vetted?
posted by dialetheia at 9:02 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Chris Hayes just talked about how Sanders helped oppose Rahm. I did not know how much effort Bernie put in to that. Good fucking move, right thing to do, too bad it's not been politically rewarding.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:03 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


CNN has been indicating that Bernie needs to win around 75% of the remaining pledged delegates to win the nomination. That isn't going to happen and what are the chances that the Superdelegates are suddenly going to ignore Clinton's 300+ delegate lead and go oh well let's just put up the White dude instead?

I understand the desire to keep up morale but the reality is that the race for the Democratic nomination is effectively over. Assuming Maryland, New Mexico, Arizona and Delaware are safely Clinton there just isn't room for him to make up those sort of differences.

Even if we can somehow assume that California, Washington and Oregon go for Sanders (and I don't think Sanders stands a chance in California based upon how much Clinton is dominating with minority voters) I just don't think there is time or states left. New York and New Jersey would be phyrric wins at best for Sanders.

Like I said keep on fighting the good fight but seriously there is nothing to be gained by continuing to demonize Clinton other than a vain hope of Trump leading to a accelerationist future and honestly that way lies madness.
posted by vuron at 9:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


Further, as far as calls to drop out, party politics isn't just about who wins - this is as much about a display of solidarity and strength on the left as it is about winning the nomination. The more delegates he has, the more influence he has over the platform and the more likely Clinton is to consider his base when choosing her VP. The more states he campaigns in, the more he's able to continue making the argument for real left policies and build a real left movement within the Democratic party to provide meaningful resistance when Clinton pivots right for the general and during her presidency should she be elected. I am very glad he's continuing to the convention.

Sure. Just to be clear about what I was saying: I was responding to your claim that he had a path to the nomination. I find it difficult to know what the point under discussion is when the goalposts keep moving. First it's the actual nomination, and don't think he's out. Then it's the power to change minds and influence people. Both are important, but they are a bit contradictory.
posted by OmieWise at 9:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


too bad it's not been politically rewarding.

For Sanders, but maybe it helped bring down the Alvarez lady?
posted by zutalors! at 9:04 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump likes his steaks well done.

fucking monster
posted by ryanrs at 9:05 PM on March 15, 2016 [20 favorites]


Is it possible for Sanders to manage to extract some major promises from Clinton/The Democratic Party if it would mean he suspend his campaign?
posted by FJT at 9:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh god, I am absolutely dreading what a liability he's going to be in the general. And when was the last time Bill was vetted?

I think this is actually one of the major reasons Hillary would welcome a Trump race. Also one of the reasons it will end up being a disgusting and disturbing election for women. Sleazeballs and creeps as far as the eye can see! And it will be super great because a big chunk (although not most) of the public will punish Hillary more heavily for her husband's behavior (can't keep her man in line!) than Bill, and refuse to blame Trump for his own (can't keep that guy down! he just loves the ladies!).
posted by sallybrown at 9:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I was responding to your claim that he had a path to the nomination.

Right, and I posted a link demonstrating the numbers he'd have to put up to get there. It's unlikely but not impossible. Dropping it now, though.
posted by dialetheia at 9:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm a vegetarian now so this is irrelevant but if Trump starts a movement post-loss to Hillary to defend the reputation of well done (NOT BURNT INTO CHARCOAL, STEAKHOUSES) steaks I will help that campaign.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:08 PM on March 15, 2016


Chris Hayes just talked about how Sanders helped oppose Rahm.

I saw him do a press conference on that. Solid.
posted by Trochanter at 9:08 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Alvarez's delightful ~30 point loss is probably more related to that whole murder cop cover-up thing
posted by theodolite at 9:08 PM on March 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sanders had nothing to do with Alvarez' ouster, that was purely a result of local outrage and it's been brewing much longer than the Sanders campaign came to town.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:09 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]




I've finally found it!

Trump likes his steaks well done.

The one thing I can agree with Trump on.

I feel a bit dirty.
posted by mmoncur at 9:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Or else what incentive does the Party have to do what the independents want, right?

The incentive is winning elections.


Yeah, but everyone claims that their policies will win elections. This is precisely the argument that lay behind the Third Way - that independents (centrist independents, rather than the Sanders left wing independents) were key to victory. What's different and useful about Sanders, I think - as well as movements like the Occupy offshoots, BLM, etc. - is that they represent the idea that you're going to need to work on bringing the electorate to you rather than going to where the electorate is, and you're going to have to make your case.

Which is something I haven't seen a tremendous amount of in the Democratic Party (including its Left flank) in the, oh, twenty-some years since I've been paying attention to politics. There's been a steady stream of what I can only describe as entitlement prophecies: the youth vote will swing the country to the Left because young people are always two point five points more liberal on every issue than their elders or some such nonsense, or the growing Hispanic vote will deliver a permanent Democratic majority (turns out second/third generation Hispanics often identify as white and are able to find a pretty comfortable home in the Republican Party), or some other variation of "history is on our side, the mindless horde will throng to us in time". Occasionally we got a more personal messiah figure who would usher in the golden age of Left-liberalism (Dean, Obama - I was originally skeptical of Sanders because he seemed like more of the same).

While among the more hard-headed, centrist, Clinton-era Democrats the push was always to accept unquestioningly the views (as mediated through wonks and commentators as well as polls) of the American people, not try to change them. Find out how the voters stand, and take that as your base. Which did win elections - and I for one still value having grown up under a Clinton presidency that actually got some good things done for my family and for other families as well, kept our soldiers from being sent overseas in their hundreds of thousands, for example - but which nevertheless ceded ground to the opposition. An opposition which wasn't just accepting what Americans thought, but trying to shape it, and succeeding very well. For thirty years the average American could turn on the radio or the TV and hear consistent, coherent and honest-sounding policy analysis coming from the Right, while from the center they heard little but statements about what an amorphous American population of which they were a part "would accept" - not what it should accept, and here's why. And while there were Left commentators who were talking as well, they were relatively few and often of an older generation (Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn, for example), while many others sank into apathy or contemptuous anger at a nation which seemed uninterested in accepting their views immediately and wholeheartedly, and grew angry at the notion that it was up to them - the right and the righteous - to make the case to groups they believed should naturally belong to them (the white working class especially).

Because what the Left and the center Democrats had in common was the assumption (there were exceptions, but they were very few and far between as far as I could tell) that you treated the American population as an irrational mass who would be swayed by pretty much anything but an actual argument. You still see remnants of this on the Left today - conservatives are just irrational monsters, incapable of critical thinking - but you see more figures, Sanders and Warren among them, who understand not only that triangulation won't save us but neither will the eternally ephemeral youth vote, or the shift to a minority-majority country - you have to actually argue the case, not just once but many times, face to face. This is the lesson the Right learned a long time ago - you make the case, you make it constantly, you never stop making it. The American citizen population is going to move leftward if that case is made consistently and over a longer time period than a single election cycle, if not, it won't.

Which is why Sanders, I think, isn't going to and shouldn't stop talking and campaigning, and why he makes clear his willingness to keep arguing his principles are better even as he argues that supporting Hillary in the general is important. He's not just fighting to win the election, although he's been very clear on how important victory here is. But there's a broader battle to win over the American people that isn't going to happen because of younger voters riding in to save us, or changing racial demographics, or (and there are still leftists who I see claiming this!) that the 2008 financial meltdown will naturally create a liberal-left constituency through sheer shared trauma. No inevitability is coming to save us. Sanders gets it. I really wish I could be sure that more of the Leftists he inspires get it as well - that electability is not a brute unchanging fact but something whose definition can and has to be changed, and that it can only be changed by consistent advocacy over time. That despair isn't a more sensible or mature response than the centrist complacency they so detest. But I see a lot of that despair, rooted in an assumption that other Americans who are conservative or centrist or whatever are monolithic blocks of awfulness who cannot be argued or reasoned with, which leads to Messianism and, ultimately, to self-fulfilling defeat.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [34 favorites]


Holy shit well done steak? Fuck I bet he even douses that shit in something like A1 sauce. This man must be stopped for the sake of the palates of millions of Americans!

First they came for the foodies, but I did not speak out because I was not a foodie
posted by vuron at 9:10 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


And here I thought he would just take a HYUGGE bite into the cow
posted by zutalors! at 9:12 PM on March 15, 2016


His butler said Trump's steaks would rock on the plate.
posted by Trochanter at 9:12 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


EW!
posted by zutalors! at 9:13 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


If he'd been pushing the anti-Rahm angle for longer though I think we'd be having a different conversation right now. But it's pretty clear that the campaign didn't think it would blow up like it has, and they just couldn't be everywhere at once, once they realized they had a real shot.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Trump gets the nomination I believe that voting against him will be a very satisfying vote for lots and lots of people. I think it will be the biggest landslide in history. America is an awful country, yes, but it also has a habit of standing up to people like Trump when it comes down to it.
posted by cell divide at 9:14 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Is there any reason to trust the voting machines and tabulators in 2016? Might Trump or Clinton win by better relationships with people who can control and change vote counts?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:20 PM on March 15, 2016


Is there any reason to trust the voting machines and tabulators in 2016? Might Trump (or Clinton) win by better relationships with people who can control and change vote counts?

Yes, Occam's Razor; and no, respectively.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is there any reason to trust the voting machines and tabulators in 2016? Might Trump (or Clinton) win by better relationships with people who can control and change vote counts?

There is basically no reason, from an infosec standpoint to trust them, no. Individual tabulators, at least, could easily be controlled, and it wouldn't require being chummy with the companies that make them. Just a sustained effort to hack them. But it's a nontrivial thing to manipulate every tabulator in every district without getting caught (unless you can get to them before they get distributed, or through a software update).

But unless we can show fraud, you either have to believe that the vote count is legit, or you have to go slowly insane.
posted by dis_integration at 9:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Cell divide is right of course. For example. I gauge the Ms. Clav vote highly and this election: "if Trump gets the primary nomination, I'm voting Hillary."

Simple, yet effective and quite the thought when one is going to pull that lever in November.

For Hillary, half the battle is over.
posted by clavdivs at 9:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Even if getting the nomination is hopeless, I think Sanders needs to stay in the race for two reasons: to continue to coalesce a leftist constituency within and also separate from the Democratic Party and also to keep Clinton electable. Sanders needs to keep pushing Clinton, especially on trade and militarism and Wall Street, in order to prevent Trump from flanking her to the left on these issues. If (and it's a big if) he can do this effectively, I think he has a very good chance of beating her in November. The best thing Sanders can do now to prevent this disaster is to keep her from pivoting to the center and exposing her left flank.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:24 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


America is an awful country, yes

... I mean, I kind of like it? For all its faults?
posted by Justinian at 9:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


People say they want to vote for something, not against something, and I think that in general advocating for a positive program gets you better results .... but I am so looking forward to voting against Trump. If I wasn't worried about spoiling my ballot I'd write "Fuck No" next his name in addition to casting my vote for Clinton/Sanders/Whoever.

I wonder if we should start organizing a "Dump Trump" movement, planning "After Dump" parties where we can bask in the afterglow of voting against him. "Gonna take a good dump this Nov. 8th?" "Oh yeah. It's time time to take a huge load off [our domestic politics].", etc., etc.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:27 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


MSNBC saying Hillary is the apparent winner in Illinois.
posted by cashman at 9:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Only about a 2,000 vote difference between Sanders and Clinton in Missouri right now.

CNN called Illinois for Clinton.

(Although both are basically going to be ties so it doesnt matter much for delegates)
posted by thefoxgod at 9:29 PM on March 15, 2016


Oh god, I am absolutely dreading what a liability he's going to be in the general

I think Bill Clinton's tendency to be a political loose cannon is exactly what Hillary needs should Trump be the GOP candidate. I bet that Bill is pissed that he doesn't get to run against Trump himself. No matter what you think of Bill Clinton's policies or personality, imagine him on a debate stage with Trump. I would pay money to watch that.
posted by billyfleetwood at 9:29 PM on March 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


Looks like I'll wind up about half a percentage point off on my prediction for Illinois, I feel pretty good about that!

But I'm going to bed before finding out for sure, some of these precincts are not going to report until after midnight!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Obama Trump would be a good bout.
posted by Trochanter at 9:32 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bills' not looking well.
posted by clavdivs at 9:33 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Wow, it's really down to the wire in Missouri for the Dems. Clinton is only .4% behind with 2% of the vote left.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:33 PM on March 15, 2016


43 states will use 10-15 year old voting equipment in 2016. I imagine it's trivial to take over some of these machines, so maybe we shouldn't blindly trust vote counts.

Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that plenty of people have motive, means, and opportunity to alter votes? It's not that difficult to find exploits, manuals, disassemble code for old software.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:34 PM on March 15, 2016


Yeah, but dis_integration's point stands: sure it's possible, but unless you have evidence you'll go mad because there are unlimited scenarios that are possible.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:36 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


In terms of voting machines, you don't need to control them all-- just certain precincts in Ohio/Florida and possibly other swing states.
posted by cell divide at 9:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Missouri will be a nailbiter but apparently there are a decent number of precincts in STL that haven't reported. Seriously Missouri get your shit together. Anyway apparently I way way overestimated that Michigan result last week and it appears that it was mainly crappy polling in Michigan that was the culprit. Polling on the Democratic side has been extremely accurate today which should give the polling wonks a bit of a sigh of relief.
posted by vuron at 9:38 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Missouri will be a nailbiter

MSNBC just reported Clinton taking the lead, and there's only one county left to report, and that county is expected to break for Clinton. Your cuticles are saved!
posted by cashman at 9:41 PM on March 15, 2016


Tim McGinty, the Cleveland prosecutor who purposefully managed not to charge the officers who killed 12 year old Tamir Rice, just lost his Democratic primary.

~~adds additional dance moves to my #ByeAnita celebration~~
posted by sallybrown at 9:43 PM on March 15, 2016 [40 favorites]


Not to slight other smart folks posting, but I think we ought to take a cue from two of the most level-headed posters here: Arbitrary and Capricious and dialethia. Two really smart people who get it, imo, even if their emphases are sometimes quite different. A&C talks process, organizational depth and long term thinking; D has provided many substantive policy goals that are worthy of serious contemplation. I strongly suspect that if we took their examples to heart that we'd find ways to embrace the best of both their perspectives. I also suspect that they'd agree on many issues, too.

It's going to take both strong, pro-human policies and considerable organizational muscle to implement them. Nobody gets everything they want but the truth of the matter is that at this time, very few people are getting anything they want. Except maybe the insiders and oligarchs running the show. Sanders is an outsider, Clinton an insider, and we need the best of those two worlds to achieve any semblance of a more just world. We also need to force each of these stubborn and ambitious candidates to abandon some of their lesser appealing qualities and positions.

People need to stop underestimating the incredible power of ideas. People need to grasp the utter importance of creating the organizational strength to implement those ideas.

Because, as is becoming more apparent every day if one looks across the aisle, the alternative lies in base appeals to "might-is-right" and that almost always leads to violence.

Let's nip that shit in the bud and do it proper and good.
posted by CincyBlues at 9:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [31 favorites]


Wow, a clean sweep tonight is crazy. I don't think anyone expected this coming off of Michigan last week. I wonder what negated the Bernmentum at the close because Sanders heavily outspent Clinton in Missouri.
posted by vuron at 9:47 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Open primaries
posted by clavdivs at 9:51 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


And with 99% of the vote counted in Missouri, and remainder due from areas of strong Clinton support, it appears she has won 5 of 5.

I hope all the Bernie supporters take pride in the fact that Clinton has already expressed her agreement with him more strongly as the race has progressed, and quickly turn towards a strong and united front against Trump, because with ⅔ of the remaining R contests winner take all, he is, incredibly, almost certainly going to be the R nominee. And frankly neither Cruz or Kasich is close to being an acceptable President.

Also, a D landslide could bring both houses of Congress, governorships and state legislatures into reach for the D's. Then we could stop the ongoing infringement of minority voter rights and end partisan gerrymandering.
posted by bearwife at 9:53 PM on March 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Historical question: a couple folks have advocated primarying Hillary from the left in 2020. Has this - primarying a sitting president - EVER been successfully done? Ted Kennedy failed in 1980, and that's the only attempt that even comes to mind.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:54 PM on March 15, 2016




NBC has called Missouri for Clinton with 99% in. She's got a razor thin margin but there apparently aren't enough votes left outstanding to close the gap.
posted by Justinian at 9:55 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


NBC calls Clinton "apparent" winner in Missouri.

My response.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bette Midler: @RealDonaldTrump gets close to the nomination. Now I see why we needed warnings on plastic bags telling us not to put them over our heads.
posted by Wordshore at 9:56 PM on March 15, 2016 [26 favorites]


Clinton is the nominee yo. Sanders should drop and endorse. The first party to unite will win this election. He fought the good fight, but this is a TKO.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:01 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I hope after today Sanders starts to steer his movement towards supporting downticket progressives. The world needs a sane United States more than ever, especially on climate. This is an issue that Bernie has been particularly good on, and an area where I think Secretary Clinton has the right intentions, but is letting herself be too influenced by a destructive consensus in Washington. I was really happy to see Sanders press her in the last debate to commit to ending fracking. While I would love it if Clinton reversed herself and endorsed a total end to fracking for oil and gas, I'm not confident she is going to budge. In the meantime, Sanders supporters would be wise to expend some energy to carry that same pledge all the way down to state rep primaries.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:02 PM on March 15, 2016 [20 favorites]


Clinton is the nominee yo. Sanders should drop and endorse. The first party to unite will win this election. He fought the good fight, but this is a TKO.

I disagree. Trump, and the republican party will pull all the media coverage the next few months if theirs is still a race, and the dems are just waiting around. It also allows Cruz, Trump and Kasich to focus all their attacks on Clinton while making it seems like, via the coverage, those 3 are the people the country is choosing from for president. I think its a smart move to keep Sanders running as long as possible.
posted by cashman at 10:05 PM on March 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


I hope after today Sanders starts to steer his movement towards supporting downticket progressives.

That's the thing, he never steered or pivoted or changed any approach at all. He might do that but I doubt it.
posted by zutalors! at 10:06 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


So it's another 0.2%. Is SNL going to do another cough and shake Larry David parody?
posted by vuron at 10:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's the most I've ever liked Larry David
posted by zutalors! at 10:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]




Poor Katy Tur, she looks like she hasn't slept for days. For covering the Trump campaign, NBC/MSNBC should give her combat pay and promise a vacation in Tahiti after the general election.
posted by Ber at 10:15 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Especially after Trump pointed at the journalists in the very back of his rally, called them "disgusting," and got the crowd to jeer at them.
posted by sallybrown at 10:16 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


So the votes are all in, right? When will they call Missouri for both parties?
posted by Sangermaine at 10:18 PM on March 15, 2016


I just have to say I could not be more ecstatic to see the backs of Anita Alvarez and Tim McGinty. This is a shot across the bow - your lack of action has consequences. This is black lives mattering (after the fact, of course - we haven't come that far yet) -- people taking the time to campaign and go out and vote to get rid of these craven do-nothings.

It would make a big difference to my feelings about Clinton if she would come out and break from Rahm, specifically citing the Laquan McDonald case and others like it. Especially because she has made a point about her support from mothers who've lost children to police shootings.
posted by sallybrown at 10:20 PM on March 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


Sangermaine: I like to imagine that teponaztli forgot about the Kerry meeting, but a few months later one Sunday afternoon they get a knock on their door, and when they open there's Kerry in a The Who t-shirt, pressed jeans, and a blazer holding a case of Sam Adams with three Secret Service agents behind him holding guitar equipment.

It's like you were there!

Apparently during the campaign he was talking about how he'd been learning some James Taylor songs, which at the time seemed really uncool, and today also seems not-exactly-cool, but in a way that I'm totally OK with. Sadly, I do not think he needed my vote badly enough, and he never followed through. Thanks for the memories (well, memory), John.
posted by teponaztli at 10:22 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Deep sigh of despair as I foresee the TPP rolling my country, blitzing every environmental law corporations find an impediment to profit.
posted by valetta at 10:26 PM on March 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Clinton is the nominee yo. Sanders should drop and endorse. The first party to unite will win this election. He fought the good fight, but this is a TKO.

Negative. The nominee gets decided at the convention. The platform gets decided at the convention. The time for unity (and the best chance for a lot of unity) comes from allowing the process to develop as designed.

I get it that Clinton supporters are offended that Sanders (and those who support him, like myself) is actually trying to win, instead of putting up a token candidacy, but deal with the fact that the ideas motivating the Sanders campaign are valid and worthy of consideration. Suggesting that he ought to "drop and endorse" betrays the very essence of why political discourse is so important. This isn't a game, it's much more serious than that. And I suspect that even if it were a game, any calls to quit and give up in the 3rd quarter would be a disservice to the game itself. By implying that we ought to invoke a mercy rule is not only mistaken, it's insulting.
posted by CincyBlues at 10:28 PM on March 15, 2016 [42 favorites]


Historical question: a couple folks have advocated primarying Hillary from the left in 2020. Has this - primarying a sitting president - EVER been successfully done?

Yeah, I saw those. Sigh. Y'know, its funny how much argument we need to put into getting people interested in getting her elected, but plotting her overthrow four years from now is apparently a font of great enthusiasm.

And no, not in the 20th century at least (there were a couple of weird cases in the 1800s before the present primary system was established - Tyler was expelled from the Whig Party during his incumbency and Polk became their new candidate, for example). LBJ famously decided not to run om 1968, and Theodore Roosevelt ran what was essentially a third-party Bull Moose insurgency against Taft in 1912, but successful attempts to primary a sitting president haven't been a thing in well past living memory.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


> Deep sigh of despair as I foresee the TPP rolling my country, blitzing every environmental law corporations find an impediment to profit.

Well, if it makes you feel better, it won't be just your country.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:31 PM on March 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump seems (or seemed, maybe today will change that) aggravated by and afraid of Sanders' politics.

Leaving him in may deflect a lot of negativity aimed at Clinton because Trump just can't seem to help himself.

Clinton has faced decades of unjust and disproportionate attacks on her character, but it's really on her if she can't motivate people vote for her (or against Trump/Cruz/mystery date).

Two of her biggest obstacles in winning over the Bernie diehards will be Jill Stein (who is rad but also expect some "I'm not a Bro, see! I'm voting for a woman!" pettiness ) and apathy ("the system is rigged, fuck it")
posted by elr at 10:33 PM on March 15, 2016


This fingerpicker finds James Taylor pretty impressive! I give Kerry a definite "E" for Effort. He sort of mangles the Malaguena bit, but hey, he's giving it a shot.
posted by CincyBlues at 10:34 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump, Cruz Vow to Barricade Kasich from Convention

This will go well.
posted by sallybrown at 10:38 PM on March 15, 2016


TFW you realize the blue isn't nearly as left as you thought it was.

I'm probably not as left as I like to think I am, but I did vote for Sanders and I spent most of tonight drinking. Now I'm skimming this post as I wait for the dryer to go off.
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:39 PM on March 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


He sort of mangles the Malaguena bit, but hey, he's giving it a shot.

Aw, that's actually really charming. Yeah, Taylor's a really great guitar player. Younger me was just a snob. Anyway, this is all a derail, so - sorry, my fault!
posted by teponaztli at 10:41 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I saw those. Sigh. Y'know, its funny how much argument we need to put into getting people interested in getting her elected, but plotting her overthrow four years from now is apparently a font of great enthusiasm.

Would you rather have a discourse about how evil she is and how we should stay at home or vote third party or write in Sanders?

I'm not saying that primarying Clinton is inevitable. Certainly we should give her administration a chance first. But I'm just saying that even if Sanders loses, that's not the end, not by a long shot. One line of defense falls, you go to the next ring. You prepare to cultivate and put forth progressives to vote for in the midterms. Then you try to work with Clinton in the White House to move things left, wherever applicable. Try to conjure up the same amount of energy that's been sparked by Sanders towards strengthening the ACA, or killing the TPP, or curtailing the NSA, and so forth.

And if her administration doesn't play ball, then primary her. 2016 isn't the end of the line, is all.

And as far as your historical analysis goes, that's correct. But I think we're at the end of a party system and as we can clearly see in the GOP camp, we are seeing unprecedented events. Successfully primarying a sitting president (who might not be Clinton, even), or brokered conventions, or a successful third party run, or parties breaking up into a four-way race a la 1860; who can say what 2020 will bring us?
posted by Apocryphon at 10:43 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


There is something else very important about the continued fight of Bernie vs Hillary. It's this: it creates a leftist narrative. It's gives voters more exposure to a leftist platform.

Imagine if Bernie gives a concession speech tomorrow. What happens? The republican garbage pile suddenly dominates ALL NEWS. All press is good press, as Truml knows well, and the WORST possibly thing for democrats would be to give the news cycles to Cruz/Drump/Zardoz for the next three months.

If Bernie gives up, Creamsicle will win. Hands down. Hillary needs him to forge her narrative and maintain the spotlight on policies and differentiation between Democrats and the trash fire that is the Republican Party.

Also, he does have a chance. A stronger one than Hillary supporters think, but I'm laying the tactical case for why he is necessary for her presidency.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 10:44 PM on March 15, 2016 [21 favorites]


Yeah I'm not a Clinton supporter. I'm just looking at the election realities here. Bernie is not mathematically eliminated yet, but as a practical matter I can't see how he takes enough votes going forward to have a claim on this nomination. Love her or hate her, Hillary has won this nomination and she will be the person standing up to and defeating Trump come the general.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


teponaztli: "Yeah, Taylor's a really great guitar player. Younger me was just a snob."

Plus he helped save us from the ant invasion.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:45 PM on March 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Mod note: A couple of comments deleted; don't make this personal, please. Discuss the topics, not other members of the site.
posted by taz (staff) at 10:47 PM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


We should get together and jam sometime, teponaztli!
posted by CincyBlues at 10:48 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]




^^^Sorry, not completely related to the election. I hope no de-rail results from my impudent posting of the Fran Drescher quote on this post.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:05 PM on March 15, 2016


Fran drescher is confusing some poor Australian in that Twitter link that Bernie is "shill" for Hillary.
posted by zutalors! at 11:07 PM on March 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


He's said many, many times that he is taking it to the convention and campaigning in every state.

Perhaps "take it to the convention" is a shorthand euphemism, but the primaries are over a month and a half before the convention.
posted by JackFlash at 11:16 PM on March 15, 2016


This is probably an obvious question, but could someone explain to me what happens to delegates pledged to a candidate who later drops out (like Rubio)? Do they go back and redistribute them based on the original state results, or is it a free-for-all? I've been reading so many threads that everything is starting to blend together.
posted by Salieri at 11:47 PM on March 15, 2016


It depends on the state.
posted by Weeping_angel at 12:06 AM on March 16, 2016


Here's a bit more info.
posted by Weeping_angel at 12:08 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm just saying that even if Sanders loses, that's not the end, not by a long shot. One line of defense falls, you go to the next ring. You prepare to cultivate and put forth progressives to vote for in the midterms.

Why wait until midterms? Every House member is up for election this fall, and a third of Senators. Change starts now. Especially with 1 to 4 Supreme Court nominations by the next President, shaping Congress is crucial no matter which party wins the election.
posted by msalt at 12:09 AM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


The heart of the problem, all problems w the world at its core is power & greed fueled by Capitalism. Time for a new deal!(Fran Drescher)

typical nanny state
posted by threeants at 12:10 AM on March 16, 2016 [33 favorites]


If Bernie gives up, Creamsicle will win.

This is kind of weird because I'm responding to my own comment, but I realized my comment made a framework that seemed to give more agency to Bernie than to Hillary.

So I want to make sure I explicitly declare my agency framework. It is: Media Narrative.

We have already seen MSNBC bow to exposure, bow to the toupee. I can't caps lock MSNBC any more than it already is, but seriously, y'all, THAT NETWORK is all about it already. I mean they have Maddow and Young Turks and then they're OH LOOK CREAMSICLE DID A THING LETS CUT TO IT FOREVER.

It's all about exposure, and we neeeeeeeed left exposure. Truml has a significant chance of actually destroying the world, honestly, and we need to fight exposure with exposure.

It's not that Hillary needs Bernie, it's that the left NEEDS the Left, existentially.

Trump is a hangover shit. Painful, bloody, and you might vomit while passing him.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 12:13 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's a bit more info.

Thanks, Weeping_angel.
posted by Salieri at 12:13 AM on March 16, 2016


Okay, this is something that a lot of Trump supporters are saying and it's driving me up the wall. Why do Trump voters think that he's not going to do what he says he'll do? No other candidate on either side gets such a huge pass like this.

Do they at least talk to each other? Because, if half or more of the people that are voting for Trump are actually believing he's gonna do what he says, doesn't this mean he's probably going to do what he says?
posted by FJT at 12:14 AM on March 16, 2016


Okay, time out to say: as much as some of you are completely wrong and obnoxious about it, I don't know of a more intelligent discussion of this insane political race anywhere on earth and I'm proud to be part of it.

Also proud to be obnoxious and completely wrong back at you (and you know who you are.)
posted by msalt at 12:23 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


As of 3:40AM Eastern time on Wednesday, Rubio's campaign website is accepting donations with the banner "Help Marco Win in Florida." Womp womp.
posted by dhens at 12:41 AM on March 16, 2016


Trump is a hangover shit. Painful, bloody, and you might vomit while passing him.

Public health warning: if you're pooping blood when hung over, you should definitely stop drinking.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:03 AM on March 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


Oh well. American Democrats are voting resoundingly in favour of neoliberalism and corporate oligarchy. Not surprising, but still depressing. It's just another reminder that liberalism and identitarianism have no necessary connection with the Left and are in most cases actually directly opposed to it.
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:31 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Here the NYT framing. Trump needs to win over the power brokers. Clinton needs to win over the progressive and independent voters. So, the authoritarian needs more power and the party of the people needs more people. Strange days indeed.
posted by kokaku at 1:38 AM on March 16, 2016


"The Left" is a pretty broad church, Sonny Jim. I get that your preferred flavour is not apparently the most popular this go around, but that doesn't mean everyone else's choice is unworthy.
posted by modernnomad at 1:40 AM on March 16, 2016 [18 favorites]


Rage.
posted by HotToddy at 1:46 AM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


Joe Scarborough – Verified account ‏@JoeNBC
Smile. You just had a big night. #PrimaryDay


Can someone remind me why this witless goon has a platform bigger than a street corner?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:23 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm a social democrat. I want the US to be more like Sweden, where I've lived. I'm voting Hillary. And I think Obama has been an amazing president. I think I'm more likely to get what I want with Hillary than with Bernie. And I was a very early Bernie supporter--I just recently changed allegiances. I'm very policy wonky. And the idea I'm a corporate stooge is just wrong. But y'all keep on calling us that if it makes you feel better.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:43 AM on March 16, 2016 [38 favorites]


Bernie Sanders' longshot victory strategy. Spoiler: it's to get "momentum" and then win over the superdelegates. Because, you know, Bernie Sanders supporters have been all about the superdelegates, right?
posted by graymouser at 2:57 AM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


What were 3+ million Republicans trying to say yesterday by voting for an openly racist, violent, misogynist authoritarian who's bent on riding a wave of white power into the presidency? Maybe they were trying to tell the rest of us how absolutely justified and necessary affirmative action and gender equity programs are. We should listen.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 3:06 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Okay, this is something that a lot of Trump supporters are saying and it's driving me up the wall. Why do Trump voters think that he's not going to do what he says he'll do? No other candidate on either side gets such a huge pass like this.

Samantha Bee interviews some Trump supporters.
posted by Pendragon at 3:31 AM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


Another obsessive fingerpicker here to confirm that JT plays the shit out of his axe, whatever you think of his songs. He has long been recognized among guitarists for his exceptionally lyrical and precise playing.
posted by spitbull at 4:11 AM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


Poor Katy Tur, she looks like she hasn't slept for days. For covering the Trump campaign, NBC/MSNBC should give her combat pay

Hey, you're talking about a woman who dated Keith Olberman without drawing combat pay. I'd say she can handle simply covering Trump, whose only competition for Blowhard of the Century might be KO (who recently announced he was moving out of his apartment in a Trump building).
posted by spitbull at 4:15 AM on March 16, 2016


That Sam Bee interview was brilliant and also maddening.

- They happily support a ("TEMPORARY!!") ban on Muslims. But two minutes later when asked about Trump's acceptance of the support of white supremacists, they insist that *all* Americans voices matter and should be heard and united. I wish Sam retorted "But not Muslim Americans right? And not the Mexican Americans either?" Why didn't she say this!?

- Trump supporters keep insisting that the more insane things that come out of Trump's mouth are just for show and he would never really do or mean any of these things. So option A: He's a liar. Or B: You have absolutely no idea what this guy will actually do when in office except your own wishful thinking and will piss off the "gullible" supporters who actually believe the shit he says now. Again, why didn't she point this out??
posted by like_neon at 4:15 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Samantha Bee Trump supporter interviews was just a well-groomed nightmare.
posted by angrycat at 4:53 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


What were 3+ million Republicans trying to say yesterday by voting for an openly racist, violent, misogynist authoritarian who's bent on riding a wave of white power into the presidency?

"It's got electrolytes!"
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:00 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


Jumping way way back:

me: "And it's a weird map in Illinois. I've honestly never seen one quite like it, very hard to call."
tivalasvegas: "It doesn't look too different to the MI map to me, rural counties leaning to Sanders with strong Sanders support in college towns, the metropolis leaning to Clinton."

What looked weird to me was the margins of some of the counties that were not where I expected them to be, especially outside downstate college towns. And then looking at specific places -- like, there's a county near me where there were 1511 votes for Bernie when I went to bed (probably a handful more now that counts are done), and I have been door-to-door in that county, I have canvassed in that county, I know the ins and outs of their local school bond referenda, like you could drop me on a particular block and I could point at houses and say "votes, doesn't vote, votes, doesn't vote, takes yard signs, doesn't vote, crazy person ..." and I DON'T KNOW WHO THESE 1500 PEOPLE ARE. Like, I feel like I know the 11 and am facebook friends with most of them. But who are these other 1500? My local Democraft/leftie/progressive friends all seem a little flummoxed this morning, and not totally sure we understand what made these folks Bernie voters are how friendly they are to progressive causes in general. Have we uncovered an untapped well of liberals who will vote for lefty county board candidates in off-year elections? BECAUSE LIFE JUST GOT EXCITING. Or are they angry anti-establishment candidates with no interest in further involvement? Or Republicans fleeing Trump et al? And if so, what was appealing about Bernie in particular?

Some areas we were like, "Oh, sure, that's about what we expected" or "Yeah, we can guess that's high college student turnout" or "That insane statehouse race is driving unusually high turnout," but other areas it's like, "Who ARE these people? Where did they come from and why don't we know about them?"

(And I mean, next task before the general: Who are these people, and what can we find out about their political preferences, and can we convert some of them into reliable lefty voters in a fairly GOP county?)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:33 AM on March 16, 2016 [24 favorites]


My local Democraft/leftie/progressive friends all seem a little flummoxed this morning, and not totally sure we understand what made these folks Bernie voters are how friendly they are to progressive causes in general.

Not to be a downer but it looks IMHO a lot like Bernie gets votes in rural conservative districts that have a hate-on for Hillary going back to the original Clinton presidency. That's what MI looked like to me.

I don't doubt you could get lefty county board candidates elected; I've never seen local elections break down on ideological grounds. You just have to get a lefty willing to join the local Republican party...
posted by ennui.bz at 5:43 AM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


(i'm assuming downstate Illinois is 70/30 or 60/40 Republican/Democrat)
posted by ennui.bz at 5:47 AM on March 16, 2016


Fran drescher is confusing some poor Australian in that Twitter link that Bernie is "shill" for Hillary.

The point is what happens after he loses the primary? If he allows himself to be subsumed into the Clinton campaign, maybe designated as the GOTV guy for the college students, but following the Clinton campaign's talking points...

But the thing is, he can still do GOTV, while pushing the same messages of his campaign, independently. I started off thinking that Bernie was allowed into the race as a useful foil to Clinton, but his surprising popularity changed my mind about his possibilities. Bernie has the opportunity to really build an alternative base of support, within the Democratic party, from the business and banking interests that dominate the Clintons. It's just a question of whether he is willing to continue to defy the leadership of the party.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:55 AM on March 16, 2016


"Not to be a downer but it looks IMHO a lot like Bernie gets votes in rural conservative districts that have a hate-on for Hillary going back to the original Clinton presidency."

Right, and I know the general trends both nationwide and in my state, but I look at this specific county, and these specific 1500 voters, and I have no idea who they are. I don't have a strong sense of them falling into particular identified trends. I mean you look precinct by precinct and you're looking at a particular chunk of households and going, "Which of these families has Bernie voters, and WHY?" Some places it's pretty clear "Oh, sure, here's some rural populists," or "lots of college students." But like I said, I look at these 1500 and I'm having a hard time guessing who this is. Like, 300 of these votes I can say "Oh, sure, that fits what we're seeing," but where did the rest come from?

"i'm assuming downstate Illinois is 70/30 or 60/40 Republican/Democrat"

I'm in a pretty reliably blue union stronghold and progressive politics aren't unknown or odd in the area, although the county I'm looking at leans more GOP. But they've got their local Democratic politicians and occasional true progressives in office. And I know the GOP voters pretty well too -- when you do local campaign work you get to know your voters pretty granularly, and which Republicans will vote for library bonds and which won't and so on, and I just don't know who these specific people are, and I am excited and curious to know. Easy to wave away at the national level as part of the broader trends, because we're talking about 1500 people, which is a rounding error in a national campaign, and at least some of them fit those trends. But where county board seats are frequently decided by a 100 to 400 vote margin, 1500 voters with unknown motivations who voted for a progressive candidate are VERY EXCITING! It doesn't really matter for the national post-mortem on these results, or for Bernie's campaign in general, but it matters a lot for future local races where 700 people vote.

(And, to extend that, I hope a lot of the Bernie volunteers who are younger and newer to politics also recognize that and are willing to extend their labor to local races in the future and to work to permanently motivate those voters they surprisingly dug up. They struck secret gold!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:56 AM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


We had eight years of Bush, with the cheerful invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, a further massive shift in income inequality, and an attempt to privatize Social Security

Under Obama, we still have social security
posted by IndigoJones at 5:58 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]



(And, to extend that, I hope a lot of the Bernie volunteers who are younger and newer to politics also recognize that and are willing to extend their labor to local races in the future and to work to permanently motivate those voters they surprisingly dug up. They struck secret gold!)


To me that's the real promise of the Sander's campaign. He has the opportunity to build an alternative within the Democratic party and this is what it would look like. But, not just volunteers, money, or more importantly jobs, for organizers! Unfortunately, it would mean he'd have to continue to fund raise.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:06 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]



Under Obama, we still have social security


Yeah, I was a "youth voter" in 2008 and am not anymore because Time, and feel like my passion for Obama was fueled by anger at the Democrats for doing nothing for 7ish years after 9/11.

But now I feel like I'm on the heap of history for not getting a Sandersesque person through in freaking 2008.
posted by zutalors! at 6:09 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Now the markets have settled, the odds:

- Democratic candidate: Clinton extremely short odds favorite now.
- Democratic VP candidate: Castro, O'Malley, Warren, Kaine, then the rest.
- Republican candidate: Cruz and Kasich at almost the same odds now. But still Trump as very clear favorite.
- Republican VP candidate: Kasich, Christie, Haley, Rubio, then the rest.
- Overall winner in November: Clinton from Trump, with everyone else nowhere.
posted by Wordshore at 6:13 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Right, and I know the general trends both nationwide and in my state, but I look at this specific county, and these specific 1500 voters, and I have no idea who they are. I don't have a strong sense of them falling into particular identified trends. I mean you look precinct by precinct and you're looking at a particular chunk of households and going, "Which of these families has Bernie voters, and WHY?" Some places it's pretty clear "Oh, sure, here's some rural populists," or "lots of college students." But like I said, I look at these 1500 and I'm having a hard time guessing who this is. Like, 300 of these votes I can say "Oh, sure, that fits what we're seeing," but where did the rest come from?

I live in a rural county (in the NE) where the R/D split for voter registration is 30/70, is reliably D in a blue state. But, outside of some wealthy enclaves, local politics is basically "Republican" except there are more women. I know this sounds abstract, but when I spent a lot of time lot of time looking at census data, it really comes down to what makes the local economy work. Where I live, the economy is really driven by social services: health care, prison, courts, social work agencies, etc. Which changes people's attitudes toward government funding when the money is coming from out of county. Within the county we are still trying to kill the libraries, because only homeless people hang out there anyway. Knowing your voters is really knowing the local economy IMHO. Have you spent some quality time with the census? It's amazing, especially in small districts...

Under Obama, we still have social security

You are aware that Obama tried really really really really hard to make a deal with the Republicans to cut social security? That's what all the "grand bargain" talk is about.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:18 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh well. American Democrats are voting resoundingly in favour of neoliberalism and corporate oligarchy.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I'm a Sanders supporter, donor and voter that is disappointed but not surprised at HRC's primary wins. He is the first real true lefty candidate on the national stage that has gotten ANY traction at all. American Democrats resoundingly don't know him. They know her and with the spectre of a Trump presidency looming closer and closer, maybe they want to go with the person that they know. I know I'm voting for her in the general and always planned to-I knew when I cast my vote for him in the primary that he had no chance of winning my state but he does represent my viewpoints more than she does and I think that deserves to be represented. Now HRC knows that some 30 odd percent of Floridians have values and ideals that aren't neoliberal and don't support corporate oligarchy. That's not an insignificant number of people and he is pulling double digit numbers in each race and in several he's within 2-3 points of her. Bernie Sanders is just the beginning of a national voice for those of us who are left leaning, you have to give the rest of the Dems a moment to catch up.
posted by hollygoheavy at 6:29 AM on March 16, 2016 [20 favorites]


Rubio sounds impossible as a VP pick. Trump won't pick him, and if it's Cruz I don't think anyone in the GOP would want an all Cuban ticket. Maybe Cruz would add Kasich.

No idea who would want in on that Trump campaign. I would say Carly Fiorina but she backed Cruz.

I think Trump might try to pick a woman when running against Hillary.
posted by zutalors! at 6:29 AM on March 16, 2016


> "I think Trump might try to pick a woman when running against Hillary."

This could be Sarah Palin's moment.
posted by kyrademon at 6:32 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


> "I think Trump might try to pick a woman when running against Hillary."

This could be Sarah Palin's moment.


Thanks for that, kyrademon. Now I'm not going to sleep until November. Or maybe never.
posted by hollygoheavy at 6:35 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't think they'd want to repeat that freakshow? But no idea what they'd do at this point. Greta Van Susteren? The only women who seem to want to be around Trump are related to him.
posted by zutalors! at 6:39 AM on March 16, 2016


I don't think they'd want to repeat that freakshow?

As opposed to your normally scheduled freak show, already in progress?
posted by Mooski at 6:40 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie Sanders Had a Phenomenal Night — Here’s Why

"At the end of the night, Hillary Clinton only increased her delegate lead by 57, leaving Sanders plenty of room to eliminate her advantage in the 24 remaining states. A candidate needs 2,383 delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination, and as of March 16, Clinton only has 1,094 delegates to Sanders’ 774. All of the states most favorable to Clinton have already voted, and the states most favorable to Sanders are still on the calendar. If anyone should be worried about their chances at the nomination waning over time, it’s Hillary Clinton."
posted by Trochanter at 6:45 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


This is a good result for Clinton, a very good night. Even very hardcore Sanders' supporters now acknowledge that there is no way for him to gain the nomination. Jacobin Magazine (linked upthread a couple of times by dialethia) breaks it down quite clearly. According to their chart Sanders would have to win literally every single state contest from here on out. For any reasonable value of possible, it's impossible for Sanders to win the nom.
posted by OmieWise at 6:45 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Samantha Bee interviews some Trump supporters.

Re that interview interview - Is the African American Trump supporter in the middle, front row, the kid featured in this TAL segment? I mean, I guess there could be a whole contingent of gay Black Trump fans out there, but it seems unlikely.
posted by longdaysjourney at 6:46 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bill Clinton: Sanders is the 'blame candidate'(TheHill)

Naturally he would say that. A lot of the shit we're dealing with is his fault. Go away, Bill.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:48 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie Sanders Had a Phenomenal Night — Here’s Why

That's a weird as shit article. Among other things, it bases some of its conclusions on this piece at 538, that was published a month ago. Things have changed. Primaries have actually happened. Even in that piece last month Silver said:
Big-state primaries on March 8 and March 15. This is probably the most important eight-day stretch on the Democratic calendar. Michigan votes on March 8 (as does Mississippi), followed by Florida, Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina and Missouri on March 15. Together, these states will put 857 pledged delegates at stake, or more than 20 percent of the Democrats’ pledged total. (Pledged delegates, chosen by voters, are distinct from superdelegates.) Based on current polling, most of these states favor Clinton either narrowly or substantially, so Sanders will have to make up ground, perhaps enough to win a couple of them outright.
That really isn't what happened for Sanders last night.
posted by OmieWise at 6:50 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh, and then there is the stuff comparing Sanders' chances to Obama's in 2008. Nate Silver is the guru for this guy, what does he think of that comparison: "Clinton Is Following Obama’s Path To The Nomination:
Sanders would need big wins in the remaining states to make up for his delegate disadvantage." Huh. He doesn't seem to agree that it will all tip Sanders' way based on the path Obama took.
posted by OmieWise at 6:53 AM on March 16, 2016


Naturally he would say that. A lot of the shit we're dealing with is his fault. Go away, Bill.

Freddie deBoer in the New York Observer: "Bill and Chain: The Clinton Presidency Could Hold Back Hillary"
This column is not about the increasingly ugly primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, though I’ll forgive you if you assume otherwise. Because of her loud championing of her husband’s policies during his presidency, and because she used her role as first lady as an argument for her own experience in her successful United States Senate run, Hillary Clinton’s reputation has been inevitably caught up in the legacy of her husband.

The fairness of discussing the various dimensions of Bill Clinton’s administration—whether as a form of praise or criticism—has been a percolating controversy throughout a primary battle that frequently seems to be about everything but policy. I have no interest in prosecuting that case here. I fear, in fact, that the debate about the intertwining legacies of the Clintons risks obscuring a point that must be grappled with by everyone to the left of center: Bill Clinton’s presidency was a disaster for progressives, for the constituencies they speak for and the country writ large.

This is not a popular point of view. Mr. Clinton has continued to enjoy high favorability ratings in the decade and a half since he left the White House. He makes frequent public appearances, earns sky-high fees for speeches and directs the powerful and well-moneyed Clinton Foundation. Few ex-presidents have had a more enjoyable—or profitable–post-executive life.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:55 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


57 delegates? She won 2 to 1 in Florida, which awards 246 delegates, and will gain net 80 there alone. Probably more like 150 net on the night. They haven't finished counting yet. That article is really wrong.
posted by bepe at 6:56 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump, I think, has a number of options, many of them not mutually exclusive, which might go into selecting a VP:

1) An establishment figure -- potentially reassure the main republican base that no, Trump surely won't *really* be such the crazy he presents himself as; look what a solid VP pick he made

2) A woman -- potentially peel off what could be some soft support for Clinton based in part on her historic candidacy

3) A minority -- potentially reassure moderate republican voters that Trump isn't *really* racist, just very very very very very very very (very) concerned about immigration issues

4) A maverick -- double down on Trump's core strength by selecting a VP just as out of left field crazypants as himself

5) A lightweight -- someone who won't overshadow Trump be comparison

6) A lapdog -- a cowed ex-opponent Trump can use to demonstrate his own strength by bringing to heel

Choices that might encompass a number of these would include Nikki Haley (1, 2, 3) or Ben Carson (3, 4, 5, 6). But this is Trump, so for all we know it might end up being, say, Jesse Ventura (4).
posted by kyrademon at 6:58 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


If anyone should be worried about their chances at the nomination waning over time, it’s Hillary Clinton.

Oh yes! Many shills and libs will find out what it is to be roasted in the depths of a Sloar that day, I can tell you!
posted by nom de poop at 7:00 AM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


And even crazier, Edwards was pretty populist as far as Democratic front runners went, at least in this generation.

I'm just dropping in for this anecdote: I used to see John Edwards around all the time, because he lives in my zipcode. And it was always weird when he'd show up at the bar (he once played pub trivia--his team lost) or stand behind me at the self-check in the grocery store. But couple of years back I went to see a friend of mine do stand-up in my (and John Edwards') neighborhood. My friend's girlfriend and I sat on the front row and just before the lights went down, John Edwards came in and plopped down directly across the aisle from us, still 100% fancy hair and fancy grin, even years after elections, embarrassment and all that. And I will have you know that he sat there in that front row and laughed and watched five comics (and we all watched John Edwards watch five comics). And not one single comic went for it. At the end of the evening, before the house lights even came up, the ex-Senator and stood and walked out the door.
posted by thivaia at 7:01 AM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Oh, and there's also:

7) A geographic choice -- someone popular in a swing state or particular region of the country who might bring in an extra state during elections

But that's something which has been happening a *lot* less often than it used to and doesn't seem to be particularly effective anymore, so I wouldn't give it too much priority on the list.
posted by kyrademon at 7:09 AM on March 16, 2016


All I know is I see 1132 to 818, leaving the Superdelegates out, and strong Sanders states to come.

Bernie needs some big wins and can't afford many more big losses, but the narrative that the election is over is just a narrative.

I thought Bernie did pretty well last night. You almost can't get closer than MO and IL. How much difference is there between winning by under 2% and losing by the same.
posted by Trochanter at 7:11 AM on March 16, 2016


"the Left" is a pretty broad church, everything from expanding the welfare state to cutting it down and insulting its beneficiaries
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:12 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is this the thread where we discuss Trump’s threat of riots if he’s denied the nomination at the convention?
posted by nicepersonality at 7:13 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm a Sanders supporter, and I'll vote for Hillary in the general, because I see very little to convince me that Sanders has a shot now. That said, I also think he should stay in the race as long as possible, to drag the message left before the free for all this summer.

What worries me about a Trump/Clinton matchup is we still haven't had the penny drop on criminal liability for the personal email server she had as SecState. Bullshit or not, trumped up or not (see what I did there?), if the right brings enough pressure to get her indicted after she secures the nomination, it's going to be a hell of a mess.
posted by Mooski at 7:13 AM on March 16, 2016


Am I the only one not buying the whole "The GOP Establishment will bork the convention because they don't want Trump" narrative?

Trump is the mainstream, establishment candidate. That's why mainstream GOP voters are flocking to him. He reflects the values of mainstream GOP voters. And he's totally establishment. He's spent decades contributing to political races. The idea that he "can't be bought" is hilarious. Of course he can be bought! He was born bought! Since when does greed not beget more greed? Selling himself is, like, his whole thing.

Trump is mobilizing voters in record numbers. GOP turnout is going to be tremendous in the general election. The GOP "establishment" knows this and are perfectly willing to get thrown into Trump's huge, beautiful, gold-plated briar patch.
posted by Cookiebastard at 7:14 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sanders is now playing with a 300 delegate handicap, he pretty much needs to win big in every state coming up. He could win every single state from now on and still lose the nomination because of Clinton's lead.
posted by octothorpe at 7:21 AM on March 16, 2016


All I know is I see 1132 to 818, leaving the Superdelegates out, and strong Sanders states to come.

But that isn't anywhere near all there is to see. If you want to argue seriously for a chance at the nomination, make it. But even Jacobin's argument, strongly supported in this thread by Sanders' supporters, shows that he can't get the nomination. If we aren't in the realm of argument, just in the realm of wishes, well, then that's something else.

Sanders is now playing with a 300 delegate handicap, he pretty much needs to win big in every state coming up. He could win every single state from now on and still lose the nomination because of Clinton's lead.

Exactly. That's the math. 1132 to 818 is just a tiny part of the math.
posted by OmieWise at 7:22 AM on March 16, 2016


How much difference is there between winning by under 2% and losing by the same.
Pretty much none, although different states apportion delegates differently. (I think there are some winner-take-all states, but Missouri and Illinois aren't among them. Actually, are there any winner-take-all Democratic primaries? I think there are some Republican ones, which Trump is expected to win.) People get really hung up on who wins what state, but the difference between winning by 1500 votes and losing by 1500 votes is pretty much nonexistent in most cases. However, I have a really hard time seeing a clear path for Sanders to the nomination, even assuming he does really, really well in the upcoming states where he's expected to do well. The Jacobin analysis is pretty far-fetched in terms of expecting Sanders to really outperform expectations, and he did worse last night than they expected him to. I think it seemed kind of possible after Michigan, but last night blunted a lot of that momentum. In particular, Ohio was a huge loss for Sanders, especially since it wasn't particularly close.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:23 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


For VP, I think Trump chooses a syndicated right wing talk show host.

Speaking of which, why hasn't there been any think pieces comparing and contrasting Trump's stump rhetoric with that of RW talk show hosts? Honestly, has trump said anything more outrageous than what's been aired daily on the AM dial?
posted by klarck at 7:26 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]




I am semi-serious when I predict that Ivanka is going to be Trump's choice for VP. I think she's old enough by a couple of weeks.

I am sort of fascinated by Ivanka. She seems so normal for some value of normal. For instance, there is considerable overlap between her favorite podcasts and my favorite podcasts. (And in particular, does she realize that one of the hosts of Call Your Girlfriend is a black woman who was raised Muslim and is in the US on an asylee visa? The mind boggles.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:30 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ivanka Trump is about to give birth. She isn't going to be anyone's choice for anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:31 AM on March 16, 2016


Actually, are there any winner-take-all Democratic primaries?

Nope.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:34 AM on March 16, 2016


He floated the idea (in that 2000 run) of Oprah as VP, which makes a lot of sense given his media-centric campaign style even today -- I don't know that Oprah would want to be his VP, though, so that's probably a non-starter. Not-fully-formed-thought: Tyler Perry? I have no idea what his politics are, but he would score well on your checklist, and he's partnered heavily with Oprah in business.

Politics and other considerations aside, I have trouble with the idea that two of the highest-profile African-American media figures in the world would ever IN A MILLION YEARS lend their support to an unquestionably racist candidate whose appeal to his supporters is at least partially based on said racism. Never mind joining him on the ticket.
posted by Strange Interlude at 7:34 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't think Bernie's chances are any worse today than they looked on January 1. I don't think this will be an easy race either for Bernie or Hillary, and we won't know the winner until July 28.
posted by Foosnark at 7:36 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ivanka Trump is about to give birth. She isn't going to be anyone's choice for anything.

Because everyone hates cute babies and young moms?
posted by msalt at 7:37 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Because everyone hates cute babies and young moms?

Because give the woman a chance to heal from giving birth.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:39 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


For Sanders to have a chance, I personally think Michigan really had to not be an aberration going forward, including on the 15th, and it doesn't look like it was.

However, I vividly remember on this site people yelling at me to stop supporting Clinton eight years ago, since she was behind by about 140 delegates so it was obviously already over. It was crappy then and it's crappy now.

Sanders can run as long as he likes, people can vote for Sanders if they want to. It didn't hurt Obama, and it won't hurt Clinton. It might even help. More engagement with the political process by leftists most likely means more leftists voting, and that is ultimately going to help anyone running to the left of the Republican nominee. Roughly speaking -- if Sanders attracts three disaffected leftists to the primary voting booth, even if one decides not to vote in the general if Sanders doesn't win and another decides to vote for Jill Stein, that is STILL A NET GAIN FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.
posted by kyrademon at 7:41 AM on March 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


The funny thing is that eight years ago Clinton was pretty much finished mathematically but her supporters were insisting that she still had a chance. Once again, I was pretty neutral about the nomination in '08; I would have been happy with either. There was some nasty racism from some Clinton supporters that year but then there was some nasty misogyny from Obama's supporters too.
posted by octothorpe at 7:43 AM on March 16, 2016


Politics and other considerations aside, I have trouble with the idea that two of the highest-profile African-American media figures in the world would ever IN A MILLION YEARS lend their support to an unquestionably racist candidate whose appeal to his supporters is at least partially based on said racism. Never mind joining him on the ticket.

Well, if all the anti-racist people are out, along with a good number of Fox News pundits, who in media (which sort of makes sense) is left? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter?

I can see him choosing a media personality - it's not like he can choose a high-profile elected official (right? Or am I totally misimagining?)
posted by R a c h e l at 7:44 AM on March 16, 2016


Because give the woman a chance to heal from giving birth.

Convention is months away. She's filthy rich and can hire a lot of help. Giving birth isn't a catastrophic injury. There are a million reasons that shouldn't happen, but having a baby is not among them.
posted by Miko at 7:45 AM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


> "The funny thing is that eight years ago Clinton was pretty much finished mathematically but her supporters were insisting that she still had a chance."

Yep, she was finished. Yep, I insisted she wasn't.

And then I cheerfully voted for Obama in the general. So what's the big deal?
posted by kyrademon at 7:45 AM on March 16, 2016


I think it’s great that Bernie is staying in the race until the convention, and I frankly don’t get it when Clinton supporters say he should drop out. The more people who vote for him in primaries, the stronger the message sent to the DNC that their current status quo is unacceptable. Also, I know a lot of Democrats and Independents who are really anxious to vote for him in late primaries, and they should get the chance to do so.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:45 AM on March 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


Can someone let me know if everyone at Sanders HQ is okay? I haven't gotten an email in the past, like, 12 hours and so I'm not sure if they are still alive or if my email is broken.
posted by goHermGO at 7:48 AM on March 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


Sanders should and will keep running because Sanders' message is more important than Sanders as an individual candidate. It's critically important that the most leftist Dems continue to feel engaged in the party, because the more influence we have when the GOP finally topples over, the better off this country will be - and Sanders has demonstrated that this is where the future of the party is leaning. I'm less skeptical of the prospects for a future more-liberal America than I've ever been.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:49 AM on March 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


Breaking: President Obama to name Judge Merrick Garland as Supreme Court nominee - Obama's gonna announce this in 10 minutes, you can probably watch the speech at whitehouse.gov/live like always. Probably too late to affect the dem primary, but might have ramifications on the general.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:50 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


SCOTUS thread is here
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:51 AM on March 16, 2016


Cool, thanks roomthreeseventeen.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:53 AM on March 16, 2016


For VP, I think Trump chooses a syndicated right wing talk show host.

Well, if all the anti-racist people are out, along with a good number of Fox News pundits, who in media (which sort of makes sense) is left? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter?

Who's the Interrupt-o-tron 5000 that appears alongside Maddow and Brian Williams on MSNBC? She has some kind of experience working with previous presidents, she said. She's not even that big of a Trump fan, but defends him anyway, and might actually be even more brute force than him when talking over people and changing the topic without seeming to care one bit.
posted by cashman at 7:55 AM on March 16, 2016


I don't think Bernie's chances are any worse today than they looked on January 1.

The math does not agree with you. I mean, in the sense that he wasn't expected to be the eventual nominee on Jan 1, and he isn't expected to be now, I kind of see what you might be saying. But the difference is that a lot of primaries have happened and a lot of delegates have been assigned. This actually changes the probability (if that's what you mean by chances) quite a lot. I haven't seen any model that puts Sanders as the nominee given where we are short of a miracle.
posted by OmieWise at 8:00 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Card Cheat: Millions of people put orders of magnitude more thought into choosing their fantasy football teams than their elected representatives and then wonder why shit is so fucked up.

It's easier to track money compared to time, so we'll look at the dollars -- $25.8 billion spent on professional sports in the US in 2013, which probably doesn't count the money spent on stadiums, which was $12 billion in 2015, while there was less than $7 billion spent on US elections in 2012. And much of this political spending is coming from super-donors, compared to sports where people spend a significant amount to attend live events, buy official (and unofficial) gear, etc.

Sports are a fun distraction, rooting for your team with fellow fans and all that. Politics are serious and actually impact your daily life, as well as your future.

Bread/Circuses 2016
posted by filthy light thief at 8:03 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Who's the Interrupt-o-tron 5000 that appears alongside Maddow and Brian Williams on MSNBC? She has some kind of experience working with previous presidents, she said.

Nicolle Wallace?
posted by hollygoheavy at 8:15 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


NPR had some interesting coverage this morning, including an interview with John Stipanovich, a Conservative pollster in Florida who was hopeful for Rubio last week, and today was saying there's a significant Republican movement for Anyone But Trump, or the catchy slogan: Tree Stump before Donald Trump. To which, I propose:

Tree Stump/Pothole 2016 - Beyond Politics

He also invoked the bible in response to the semi-hypothetical question of backing Trump if he is the GOP candidate: For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

It was an interesting piece, but unfortunately the transcript isn't up yet, and I can't listen to the audio here.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:18 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump, I think, has a number of options, many of them not mutually exclusive, which might go into selecting a VP:

It's going to be Omarosa, isn't it? ☹
posted by mazola at 8:19 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


A key difference here is that in 2008, Clinton actually won the popular vote (48.04% to 47.31%), and neither candidate had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination by the convention (though Obama was leading). Superdelegates broke the stalemate.

Obama had 51 percent of pledged delegates. Superdelegates broke the stalemate that was created by the existence of superdelegates.
posted by Etrigan at 8:20 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


filthy light thief, the transcript. I thought it was interesting, too.
posted by cooker girl at 8:22 AM on March 16, 2016


A key difference here is that in 2008, Clinton actually won the popular vote (48.04% to 47.31%), and neither candidate had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination by the convention (though Obama was leading). Superdelegates broke the stalemate.

The win of the popular vote in 2008 is kind of not true, because Clinton broke with the party, went rogue, and put her name on the ballot in Michigan, which was being punished for things... I dunno, internecine party bullshit, and everyone was supposed to leave their names off the ballot. Surprise surprise, when they held the primary in MI, Clinton, the only one on the ballot, got all the votes.
posted by dis_integration at 8:22 AM on March 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


Oh shoot. Never mind, that's the last one.

I should pay more attention to dates.
posted by cooker girl at 8:23 AM on March 16, 2016


Nicolle Wallace?

Yep, but looking at that page, that isn't happening. So I guess it'll be someone else.
posted by cashman at 8:29 AM on March 16, 2016


Overall winner in November: Clinton from Trump, with everyone else nowhere.

Huh, it looks like John Kasich has better odds than Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz to win the general. Bettors really, really think that Cruz is overperforming his eventual chances in the delegate count (i.e., that Cruz as anti-Trump is not gonna happen).
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:29 AM on March 16, 2016


Huh, it looks like John Kasich has better odds than Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz to win the general. Bettors really, really think that Cruz is overperforming his eventual chances in the delegate count (i.e., that Cruz as anti-Trump is not gonna happen).

My no-more-informed-than-any-of-the-rest-of-us guess is that, if they fuck over Trump, they'll try to go with a Rubio/Kasich ticket. Both of them are less superficially loathsome than Cruz and likely to do better in the general, and it would be hard to justify putting Kasich at the top of the ticket when he's only won a single state in the primary...
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:32 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump / Schwarzenegger 2016?
posted by oulipian at 8:35 AM on March 16, 2016


oulipian: Trump / Schwarzenegger 2016?

Schwarzenegger endorsed Kasich. Also, he's the new boss on The Apprentice.
posted by bluecore at 8:46 AM on March 16, 2016


it would be hard to justify putting Kasich at the top of the ticket when he's only won a single state in the primary

Not that I care particularly, but Rubio only won one state as well, Minnesota, which will not be voting for the Republican this fall. He also won the non-voting territory of Puerto Rico and the District, which has the three safest Democratic electoral votes in the country.

Meanwhile Kasich can probably lock in the swingiest of swing states without which, I believe, Republicans have never (?), or never in modern times (?) won the White House. And, y'know, he has actual governing experience.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:53 AM on March 16, 2016


$25.8 billion spent on professional sports in the US in 2013, which probably doesn't count the money spent on stadiums, which was $12 billion in 2015, while there was less than $7 billion spent on US elections in 2012.

I repeat my semi-serious call for a super PAC that funds swag at the polls. Or maybe a special lottery that you have to show a voting receipt to enter, funded through a surtax on all political donations....
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:58 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wonder what the subset is of Trump guys that are only in it for the hat.
posted by Trochanter at 8:59 AM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


The win of the popular vote in 2008 is kind of not true, because Clinton broke with the party, went rogue, and put her name on the ballot in Michigan, which was being punished for things... I dunno, internecine party bullshit, and everyone was supposed to leave their names off the ballot.

To be particular, Michigan had moved their primary date earlier.

As part of the long fight over making Iowa and New Hampshire power players in the election, they would keep moving up their primaries/caucuses, and were making threats at moving theirs up to 2007 if need be. So, a deal was struck, they stayed in 2008, as long as nobody else moved earlier than a certain date -- except for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and North Carolina, no primary could be before February 5th, 2008 (Super Tuesday that cycle.)

Then Michigan did (to Jan 15,) and the deal was if you did, any supported candidate would not go on the ballot and any delegates elected would not be seated at the convention.

Then Clinton said "Fuck that" and put her name on anyway.

The right answer is for *everybody to go on the same day* but no, Iowa. And the right answer was to remove Clinton from every remaining ballot for failing to follow rules, but no, Clinton.

They did eventually seat the delegates, initially with a half vote, then with full voting privileges, but only after Obama had won 51% of the pledged delegates and had two thirds of the super delegates commit to him.
posted by eriko at 9:04 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I repeat my semi-serious call for a super PAC that funds swag at the polls. Or maybe a special lottery that you have to show a voting receipt to enter, funded through a surtax on all political donations....
Didn't Soros just pledge $15 million to a fund to increase voter participation? Maybe there will be t-shirts! I hope they're better than the ones at blood drives.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:05 AM on March 16, 2016


the swingiest of swing states without which, I believe, Republicans have never (?), or never in modern times (?) won the White House

It's never. The only non-Democrat to win the White House without winning Ohio after 1828 (the year the Democratic Party was founded) was Zachary Taylor (a Whig).
posted by the road and the damned at 9:06 AM on March 16, 2016


Wonder what the subset is of Trump guys that are only in it for the hat.

It's a pretty sweet hat, I would wear one if it wasn't associated with Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:07 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


The right answer is for *everybody to go on the same day* but no, Iowa. And the right answer was to remove Clinton from every remaining ballot for failing to follow rules, but no, Clinton.

yeah I don't get why the primary is not all in one day. Like, how powerful can Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats be within the party infrastructure? All this one-state-after-another drawn out crap does is make the politics a dirtier business than it would be otherwise, with all this time to believe you can still win IF ONLY and time to cook up new ways of ratfucking your opponents. I just want to go vote, go to bed, and find out who won in the morning. I guess it makes for good TV ratings though.
posted by dis_integration at 9:11 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also, if they held the primary on a single day, then maybe I'd never have to hear the word "momentum" again in a political context.
posted by dis_integration at 9:13 AM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


The benefit of starting with one or two states is it gives a candidate with less resources a smaller election to start with. You would have to fundraise a lot more to be viable if the only contest is a national one. Of course, no reason it should always be Iowa and New Hampshire.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:18 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I hope they're better than the ones at blood drives.

Wait, what? You get t-shirts at blood drives?

Now all I have to do is go back in time and stop myself being gay and I'll be sartorially set.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:18 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I would buy a MAKE AMERICA HATE AGAIN hat. Or MAKE AMERICA WAIT AGAIN, I'm never on time for shit and it drives my spouse crazy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:21 AM on March 16, 2016




Like, how powerful can Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats be within the party infrastructure?

It's not the parties themselves, it's the congresses of Iowa and New Hampshire that keep those early dates. The parties accept them, but they don't set the dates. In fact, it was the GOP in Michigan who moved the date up, but a number of Democrats in Michigan agreed with them.
posted by eriko at 9:29 AM on March 16, 2016


So, this is Trump's new ad apparently. (warning: misogyny; Putin praise)
posted by melissasaurus at 9:32 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


You would have to fundraise a lot more to be viable if the only contest is a national one. Of course, no reason it should always be Iowa and New Hampshire.

Simplest way to fix that is to move everything back to, oh, I dunno, August? Then September for the conventions (or fuck the conventions, just use the popular vote) and only have October for the main campaign.

Then pass a rule refusing to ballot or seat anybody who announces, or sets up a fundraising group, before, oh, July 15th.

By wiping out at least 2/3rd of the campaign time? You save a bunch of money.

It'll never happen, of course. But I do envy the old "Elections are in six weeks GO" that the UK used to have. Alas, the FTPA 2010 has made it so everybody knows when the next election is, so the campaigns are already starting to grow in duration.
posted by eriko at 9:32 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Donald Trump says he'll skip the Fox Republican debate

He should. He hasn't been particularly strong against Kasich or Cruz in the debates and Fox was pretty clearly trying to take him down last time. No benefit to showing up.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:33 AM on March 16, 2016


In 2011 a Black Man was president, and a White Man said that the Black Man could not have been born in America, and could not be the president, because the he was Un-American. The Black Man must have been born in Africa; in Kenya. There must be a Conspiracy.

The White Man did not stop talking: he said the Mexicans were Murderers and Rapists; he said the Muslim Tourists might be Terrorists and should be kept away. He said Global Warming was invented by the ever-deceitful China. He said that women were objects. He said that torture was wise, and that his protesters needed more of a beating, and that he would pay the legal fees.

Now, the Republican Party is nominating Donald Trump to be President of the United States.

The Democratic Party is nominating a person who can defeat Donald Trump, and that is Hillary Clinton. Maybe, like me, you think Hillary Clinton will make a good president. Maybe you think she will be average, or Washington Business-As-Usual. But whatever you think, you really ought to think she will be better than the White Man who said the Black Man must have been born in Kenya.

I have hope Donald Trump will not win the presidency. But I do not want it to be close. I want him to be electorally crushed. I want those who support him, quietly or loudly, and who will not change their minds, to be shamed, and to be electorally decimated in every State and at every level. I want a new era of progressive policy to repudiate this terrible man, his movement, and the forces that created him.

Let us now unite and say to him: you are fired.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:40 AM on March 16, 2016 [53 favorites]


It's not the parties themselves, it's the congresses of Iowa and New Hampshire that keep those early dates.
Nope, it's mostly the parties. There's really complex negotiating that goes on with the parties about primary and caucus dates. I don't know how it works on the Republican side, but on the Democratic one, New Hampshire has a firm guarantee that they get the first primary. Iowa can go first because we have a caucus, not a primary. The current Democratic leadership in New Hampshire has got some sort of hangup about it, and they won't let Iowa change to a pledged delegate caucus, because they say it's too much like a primary. What I'm hearing is that Democrats in Iowa are pretty much ready to give up and cede first in the nation to New Hampshire, and we'll either have a primary or a less-crazy caucus. I'm hearing some rumbling that maybe we could go third, after New Hampshire and South Carolina. But they would really like to keep the Democratic and Republican caucuses/ primaries/ whatever on the same day, so there will have to be negotiation with the Republicans about any change.

I don't think it's received a lot of attention, but the county conventions happened last week, and the Polk County convention didn't go well. (Polk County is the most populous county in Iowa, and it contains Des Moines.) It was super disorganized and dragged on for hours, and there was a lot of acrimony. The Sanders people seem to think there was some kind of conspiracy, even though Sanders ended up picking up a couple of delegates to the state convention. I think it added to the sense that the current system isn't working.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:48 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]




what was He afraid of, the leftist mormon hordes of Salt Lake rising up in their white button-down shirts to protest Him? Were they going to -- bicycle at Him? Knock annoyingly on His hotel room door?
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:01 AM on March 16, 2016


On multiple visits to SLC, I encountered old people slowing down their cars and shaking their fist at me because I was smoking on the sidewalk outdoors.

Perhaps Trump knows of the Mormon fist of righteousness?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:04 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


If nothing else, it confirms that the GOP is now 100% playing by Trump's rules, not theirs.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:05 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Let us now unite and say to him: you are fired.

My facebook is also filled with all this: ok, Sander's folks, the jig is up. Now COME TOGETHER and UNIFY behind THE WINNER.

What does this mean now? I'm supposed to fall in line and agree with all of HRC's policy positions? I'm fairly certain the vast majority of Sanders primary voters are going to vote for Clinton in the general. But otherwise, I have no idea what I'm being asked to do, exactly. I have a feeling what's being implied is: you lost, now conform. And I will not, and urge everyone to refuse these bizarre overtures for 'unity'.
posted by dis_integration at 10:06 AM on March 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


what was He afraid of

Megyn Kelly.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:06 AM on March 16, 2016 [7 favorites]




I'm not saying anyone needs to stop voting for Sanders, or that Sanders should drop out (and I don't think he should) but it's not that weird for people to ask for party unity.

It's not really being a wacko fringe outsider to be a Sanders supporter. Lots of people asked Hillary supporters to do the same in 2008 and it wasn't some sort of threat to their individuality.
posted by zutalors! at 10:11 AM on March 16, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'm supposed to fall in line and agree with all of HRC's policy positions?

No, you're supposed to enthusiastically support HRC as the realistic alternative to the antichrist's douchebag cousin
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:12 AM on March 16, 2016 [22 favorites]


I have no idea what I'm being asked to do, exactly.

This is what they're saying:

"Please don't vote for Trump. Please, please, I know you said you wouldn't, but it's kind of a crazy year and I read a poorly sourced article about Sanders supporters flocking to Trump somewhere, so now I'm worried. So, please don't vote for Trump."
posted by FJT at 10:17 AM on March 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


HRC can win my state without me casting a vote for her or doing anything for her campaign, whether enthusiastic or otherwise. I have yet to vote for Bernie in the primary, but will do so next week. Until the convention, I will enthusiastically support progressive policies and try to get them adopted at the convention. After Clinton's official nomination, I will shift my enthusiasm to local candidates and issue-based campaigns. Yes, I prefer Clinton to Trump. Yes, I am enthusiastic about having the president be a woman, even if I disagree with many of her policies. But I can't go from enthusiastic Bernie supporter to enthusiastic Clinton supporter. And I think asking people to do that is really alienating. Maybe the enthusiasm will develop naturally as we move toward the general election and the conversation changes. But you (general "you") can't just flip a switch and manufacture enthusiasm for a candidate overnight. Particularly when many people haven't even had the chance to cast their votes yet (even if those votes are now inconsequential to the overall win).
posted by melissasaurus at 10:19 AM on March 16, 2016 [19 favorites]


ok we won't. And also, don't get sucked in by the reddit troll kids, it's not good for your mental health.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:19 AM on March 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


What does this mean now? I'm supposed to fall in line and agree with all of HRC's policy positions?

Have you ever voted for someone who you agreed with 100%? I've been voting since 1982 and I'm sure that I haven't.
posted by octothorpe at 10:27 AM on March 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


Interview with Mike Davis about the election (later half of the interview). Ends with this zinger (about the underlying dynamics, not about the election itself):
I manifestly do believe that we have arrived at a final conflict that will decide the survival of a large part of poor humanity over the next half century. Against this future we must fight like the Red Army in the rubble of Stalingrad. Fight with hope, fight without hope, but fight absolutely.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:31 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I saw a lot of Sanders supporters on Facebook bemoaning the fact that they just hadn't gotten their message to enough people, when... what if a moderate Democrat is, in fact, what the majority of Democrats want? While I would love a president who completely agrees with me, I also don't have a problem with the ultimate nominee being less liberal than I am, because it would be pretty hard not to be. I think the function of the leftmost wing of the party should be to pull the party left, and we have to keep doing so, and Sanders is an indication of how well it can work - think how more seriously he and his platform are being taken now than when he first declared! - but if Clinton is the nominee then I can't bring myself to be outraged about it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:31 AM on March 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


But I can't go from enthusiastic Bernie supporter to enthusiastic Clinton supporter. And I think asking people to do that is really alienating.

True. At the same time, if the shoe were on the other foot, I wonder if Clinton supporters would have been asked to fall in line quickly as well. I would definitely have had to take a break of a few weeks at least from the news in order to try to reset myself for the general election.
posted by FJT at 10:31 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Interview with Mike Davis about the election

i read this as Miles Davis and was thrilled
posted by beerperson at 10:34 AM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


So, this is Trump's new ad apparently. (warning: misogyny; Putin praise)

This "ad" would work just as well if you inserted Trump's bing-bing-bong clip in place of Hillary's clip.
posted by zakur at 10:38 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


yeah I don't get why the primary is not all in one day.


By wiping out at least 2/3rd of the campaign time? You save a bunch of money.


Well, that would be one way to keep insurgent candidates like Sanders and Obama from ever appearing again.

Sanders and Obama both needed both limited states and to to get enough exposure to have a go at the nomination. I may not vote for him, but the last thing we need is a system that would keep Sanders from making a run at all.
posted by happyroach at 10:40 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


At the same time, if the shoe were on the other foot, I wonder if Clinton supporters would have been asked to fall in line quickly as well.

I'm sure there would be calls for that. It's to be expected. There are just a lot of votes left to be cast (including huge states like NY and CA), regardless of whether those votes will affect the ultimate outcome. And part of me wants to delay focusing on the general election, because I don't think I could handle 8 months of Trump v. Clinton. We thought it was racist and misogynist before, I don't think we've even seen a fraction of what's to come. The longer I can stay in my free-college-and-health-care-for-all vs. free-college-and-health-care-for-poor-people bubble, the longer I can try to forget the dumpster fire that is going on with the GOP.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:40 AM on March 16, 2016 [16 favorites]


FJT: At the same time, if the shoe were on the other foot, I wonder if Clinton supporters would have been asked to fall in line quickly as well.

Clinton supporters have already been asked to fall in line quickly. With the exception of a small disgruntled minority, the vast majority of us did so in 2008 and went on to support and vote for Obama, in part because the alternative was Sarah Palin being one heartbeat away from the Presidency.
posted by zarq at 10:45 AM on March 16, 2016 [19 favorites]


Sanders supporters will do the same with time. Just let us get through the stages of grief, particularly the ones who are new to quixotic left-wing insurgency Post-Election Sadness. (I mentioned to my team lead that I was a bit cranky this morning because election and she said her younger brother, a first-time voter, had called her crying last night over the Sanders loss. Poor kid.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:56 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


At the same time, if the shoe were on the other foot, I wonder if Clinton supporters would have been asked to fall in line quickly as well.

I thought that they've been asked to do that for the last several months:

"Sanders won his home state! Hillary is DOOOOOOMED!"

"If you look at this poll sideways in a darkened room while wearing red spectacles, it shows that Hillary can't possibly win! Join the winning side!"

It's just more of the same, just going the owner way for once.
posted by happyroach at 10:56 AM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


> It's just more of the same, just going the owner way for once.

if there's one thing I've learned in my 30-odd years in America, it's that things always go the owner way...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:12 AM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


What if we say we're open to supporting Clinton, but complain incessantly at the same time about the inadequacy of her policies, and threaten to withhold our votes until she takes steps towards more agreeable policies. Support for any candidate should be a spectrum, after all.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:12 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton supporters have already been asked to fall in line quickly. With the exception of a small disgruntled minority, the vast majority of us did so in 2008 and went on to support and vote for Obama, in part because the alternative was Sarah Palin being one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I think it would be a different conversation if we were having it in June, rather than in March with many many states left to vote. I just bristle at the fact that I'm supposed to fall in line and support this candidate before I've even voted in the primary. It's one thing if he ran out of money and couldn't continue for that reason, but that's not the case. He has the money to keep going, and I hope he does. I don't think it damages Clinton at all to have a strong Sanders campaign through to the convention.

I don't get the rush to pivot to the general either. This election year is weird. We aren't going to be up against an establishment candidate who will run their campaign in a typical fashion. So much could happen in the country and the world to change the conversation for the general 10 times before November. There will be plenty of time to focus on Trump. And, really, if Clinton has the nomination locked up (which is overwhelmingly likely), then she can do that now anyway. We aren't dealing with a well-balanced person here -- he is a narcissist who can say something and directly contradict it in the next sentence and then cast you as the crazy one. I don't see any benefit to rushing to the general election fight, and significant risk of getting many people burnt out on the nastiness of it all. The longer the Democrats can discuss substantive policy issues and not just be anti-Trump, the more we look like the adults in the room who are better poised to handle serious issues.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:16 AM on March 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


i think most everyone is just scared and are saying things out of fear on all sides. there's not really a point to discuss exactly how much support people should have for the probable democratic candidate right now. if it's october, and you live in a swing state though, prepare for an even more fearful plea.
posted by nadawi at 11:20 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]




I just bristle at the fact that I'm supposed to fall in line and support this candidate before I've even voted in the primary.

Hear, hear.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:25 AM on March 16, 2016


But I can't go from enthusiastic Bernie supporter to enthusiastic Clinton supporter. And I think asking people to do that is really alienating.

That's not what I am suggesting. Nor do I think Sanders needs to suspend his campaign. But I really am hoping that while continuing to keep the Democrats and Clinton attuned to the significant issues Sanders has highlighted (e.g. income inequality and the environment), everyone, including Sanders supporters, takes a hard look at how dangerous an ongoing schism in the Democratic party can be at this time. Trump, the very likely R nominee, is a nightmare, the closest the U.S. has ever gotten to letting a racist dictator take office. Cruz is dreadful too, in a Handmaids Tale kind of way. And Kasich is a disaster for women and abortion rights.

Now is a good time for everyone to focus their attacks on Trump and the Rs, is what I am saying. It isn't time to crown Clinton yet, but that day is approaching fast. And then, if Trump is the nominee, the Democrats will have a truly historic opportunity to take away the reins of power from Rs at all levels, from the Supreme Court and Congress to the state governments. If they are ready and willing to do it.
posted by bearwife at 11:27 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


but for the sake of your fellow American don't disengage

That sums up my feelings about the matter. It seems like ever since McGovern, the Democratic Party has been beating down insurgent populists, and after those candidates lose the primaries everyone just goes home and disaffectedly votes for the establishment nominee. And I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Certainly in the last few races we've seen Republican opponents who are not worth considering. But it seems like the spirit dies afterwards after the excitement of the horse race is over.

And take Obama, who might not have been Kucinich or Gravel, was still more of an insurgent and to the left of Clinton. But even after he was elected, the grassroots effort that brought him to office faded away. Sure, that's what happens after a race; people get tired, they're happy if they win, demoralized if they've lost. But what if the progressive elements who brought him into office was there to keep him to the left during the bailouts? What if there was more grassroots pressure to keep him from making compromises with the banks? What if Occupy was around during the writeup of the ACA to agitate for the public option or for single-payer, and to force Blue Dogs to remember their constituency?

2016 is a time of realignment, and the energy in the Sanders campaign reflects that leftist policies have support in the general public. So I'm saying that we can't allow this energy to fade like it did with the Dean campaign, or after Obama was elected. Sanders has brought up both policy ideas and the idea of mass movements to the forefront. We can continue those ideas regardless if he wins or lose.

It would be a great shame if both the energy and the grassroots machinery that's built up around Sanders was to simply melt away after he concedes. Why not use this moment as an opportunity to create a pressure group within the Democratic party to not only lobby Clinton but all other establishment figures? The left needs to be a loyal opposition.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:33 AM on March 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


I just bristle at the fact that I'm supposed to fall in line and support this candidate before I've even voted in the primary.

But I don't think this is something to lay at the feet of Clinton or Clinton supporters, it's an artifact of the way our democracy is structured. It's a systemic problem, not a candidate problem.

Sanders has no chance at the nomination. That's a function of how the primaries fall and which ones he has picked up delegates in. The primaries are effectively over even though there are many states still left to vote. Everyone's vote does not count in the same way. I've basically lived in DC my whole life, I've never had my Presidential vote count. Nor my primary vote. As I said, this is a structural problem. Candidates don't campaign for sure things. This is what the concept of the "swing state" describes.

There are all kinds of reasons other than the mechanics of the election or nomination to cast a vote, absolutely. But I do think the calculus changes a bit when you know the outcome of the nomination, or it should. Sanders and Sanders supports should not act as if the goal is to win the nomination, because they have already lost it. They should act as if the goal is the elect the best candidate in November and govern themselves accordingly. Doing so responsibly should change the tenor of attacks and recriminations.
posted by OmieWise at 11:35 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


It isn't time to crown Clinton yet, but that day is approaching fast.

I voted for Bernie in the primary and will gladly vote for Hillary in the general, but using the verb crown in making the case for party unity to his supporters is, um, perhaps not the most convincing word to use.
posted by mostly vowels at 11:37 AM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


I guess it also depends on who is in your sphere of influence. I live in a deep blue state, and always have. The only Rs in my life are my relatives, and they are so far to the right they'd happily vote for a Limbaugh/Coulter ticket if it happened; so, mostly we just don't discuss politics because there are pretty much zero issues we agree on (they're mostly socially agnostic on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana, but only in the sense that they don't care what others do; not enough to actually stand up for people's rights). My friends will all vote for Clinton if it matters in their state (I think I know maybe 2 people who live in a swing state; about half of my friends have or will vote for Clinton in the primary as well).

What I'm saying is, if I state objections to some of Clinton's policies, it has about zero effect on anyone's general election vote; to the extent that it does, it's in a state that is irrelevant to the outcome. I imagine this to be the case for many people.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:37 AM on March 16, 2016


Geez, it's March. I think we can wait on dealing with Trump. The Democratic party has a lot to answer for to the liberal wing. We should be trying to find a way to integrate the idealism into the party. I have yet to vote here in California. The people calling for the focus to now be on Trump are not understanding that, in order for the Democratic party to survive, it NEEDS to fold the left in -- or it will form this great schism bearwife is referring to.
posted by waitangi at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


So, this is Trump's new ad apparently. (warning: misogyny; Putin praise)

I'd say that's a dogwhistle calling her a bitch, but that's too obvious a pun and it's really just a completely normal-audio whistle.
posted by gatorae at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2016


I actually do think that Sanders OUGHT to stick around till the nomination (as he has said he will do), because it's worth demonstrating to the party at large just how many Dems had him/his policies as their first choice nationwide. To me, that's totally compatible with supporting Clinton.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump now has 666 delegates.
posted by Wordshore at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2016


And take Obama, who might not have been Kucinich or Gravel, was still more of an insurgent and to the left of Clinton.

While that may be true when taking into account things they have no voting record on, it should be noted that based on their actual voting records in the Senate Clinton was very very slightly to the left of Obama.
posted by Justinian at 11:41 AM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think it would be a different conversation if we were having it in June, rather than in March with many many states left to vote. I just bristle at the fact that I'm supposed to fall in line and support this candidate before I've even voted in the primary.

I agree. I was responding to the idea that was raised that Clinton supporters would refuse to help elect a frontrunner. I was not criticizing Sanders supporters.

Honestly, I'm kind of floored and dumbfounded that the Sanders supporters in this thread have apparently given up and tossed in the towel. Especially considering how passionate many of you were about his candidacy. He had one bad night. The next few primaries will likely wind up in his win column. New York and California are a month or two away, and anything can happen between now and then. He's not conceded. We have no idea what will happen in the next few months. What scandal might erupt. What candidate might say something stupid, or commit an unrecoverable blunder. What polls might be entirely wrong about his chances. Campaigns are organic things. And sometimes, Truman defeats Dewey even though every "expert" is convinced the exact opposite is going to happen.

I truly do not understand why, in the face of all of these possible variables, someone would adopt a defeatist attitude. If nothing else, as you mention, seize the opportunity to spread his message further.
posted by zarq at 11:44 AM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


What I'm saying is, if I state objections to some of Clinton's policies, it has about zero effect on anyone's general election vote; to the extent that it does, it's in a state that is irrelevant to the outcome. I imagine this to be the case for many people.

Well, yes and no. I agree with you completely about personal sphere of influence or even community sphere of influence, but I think there is a larger question of the national conversation as a whole. We can all have different ideas about what goes into making that national conversation, but I do think how it is conducted can have an effect on how the general election is run. I think this can be both positive (Sanders pulling Clinton left), and negative (Clinton being painted as an unacceptable candidate for leftists).
posted by OmieWise at 11:44 AM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


While that may be true when taking into account things they have no voting record on, it should be noted that based on their actual voting records in the Senate Clinton was very very slightly to the left of Obama.


That's a fair critique. Maybe the thing about 2008 is that it was never liberal populist vs. corporate establishment all along. It was just junior outsider vs. senior establishment. As mentioned previously, HOPE and Change caused people to project their ideas of progressivism onto Obama.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:45 AM on March 16, 2016


using the verb crown in making the case for party unity to his supporters is, um, perhaps not the most convincing word to use

I am sorry my choice of verb negated the rest of my comment for you. Here's my substitute wording, OK? It isn't time to formally nominate Clinton yet, but that day is approaching fast.
posted by bearwife at 11:46 AM on March 16, 2016


Apocryphon: I agree. I believe people consistently overestimated how far left Obama was and underestimate how far left Clinton was and is. Both are roughly center-left.
posted by Justinian at 11:47 AM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


Liberals overestimate/underestimate, I mean. Right wingers apparently believe both Obama and Clinton are evil pinko left wing socialist commies. Sanders must make their brains blue screen and reboot.
posted by Justinian at 11:48 AM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


It would be a great shame if both the energy and the grassroots machinery that's built up around Sanders was to simply melt away after he concedes. Why not use this moment as an opportunity to create a pressure group within the Democratic party to not only lobby Clinton but all other establishment figures? The left needs to be a loyal opposition.

As a Clinton supporter, the last thing I want to see is the Sanders grassroots energy and enthusiasm and support melt away. And I certainly don't think it needs to alchemize into "enthusiasm" for Clinton from people who don't feel that for her.

I do think that much more good can be done, however, by mobilizing that energy and enthusiasm downballot to state and local elections.

No president, no matter how stubborn and committed, will ever be able to accomplish anything like free public college until this map is a lot more blue than red.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:48 AM on March 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


Yeah, I agree. Whatever happens, the Sanders campaign movement should organize to persist after this election, and it should just be not about electing a president, but other candidates as well, and also causes and legislation. It's not there aren't already a lot of progressive groups or networks already. It's just it takes the excitement and high-profile nature of a presidential campaign to really mobilize people. The 2018 midterm elections must not do any less than what we've had this year.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:55 AM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Re-reading my comment, I sound like i was saying, "I wasn't criticizing Sanders supporters" and then I went ahead and criticized Sanders supporters. For whatever it's worth, that isn't how I meant for it to sound. Everyone is of course entitled to feel however they do and do whatever they want. I just don't believe the primary process should be considered a done deal yet.
posted by zarq at 11:55 AM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Honestly, I'm kind of floored and dumbfounded that the Sanders supporters in this thread have apparently given up and tossed in the towel.

I think this is the difference between a 20-year old Sanders supporter and a not-20-year-old Sanders supporter (I know, #notall, etc.). Yes, any number of things could happen that wildly change the race. But, I have been an activist for a long time and am very familiar with activist burnout. In order for me to have any stamina for local races or the convention or the general election, I need to be realistic about the likely outcome. I knew I'd vote for Bernie from the day he officially declared (assuming he was still on the ballot when my state voted); I'd been a fan of his for some time. And, for a while, it looked like he actually had a chance, which was crazy. And he might still have a chance, though it's unlikely (and we have to take into account the way the media narrative affects turnout at these later races). I'm not going to go so far as to support Clinton policies that I disagree with. But I'm not going to try to convince someone that Bernie has an equal likelihood of winning. I want to have some fight left in me for other races and other issues.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:59 AM on March 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


Bernie should form a Move On type organization with Elizabeth Warren to push for leftier congresspeople, campaign finance reform, the Merrick Garland nomination and constitutional amendments overturning Citizens United and the money = speech Supreme Court rulings.
Bonus: good time to raise donations for such an organization from Clinton's supporters who agree.
posted by msalt at 12:01 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


What this nomination season has illustrated to me is that a lasting progressive movement is going to have issues until it becomes more intersectional in it's policies and more importantly it's messaging.

White millenials have flocked to Sanders in amazing numbers but the Democratic party is extremely dependent on African-American and Latino voters for national elections and Sanders completely failed to generate messaging that worked for those communities. Yes part of the issue was that he was a liberal Senator from Vermont and completely off the radar of most Democrats but he knew he was running against Clinton who has effectively been campaigning 8 out of the last 12 years and has deep deep ties to minority communities.

The Sanders messaging was a mix of clueless (in the form of your typical older white male clueless) and hamfisted and outside of caucus states tended to not resonate with large portions of the Democratic electorate.

Now you can possibly indicate that there is research that shows that the Latino and AA communities are less progressive as a whole that the white liberal community but the continued messaging from Sanders proxies that minorities just don't know Sanders record or that Minority (and Southern Democrats in general) just don't vote their interests were patronizing in the extreme.

Plus the extreme negativity towards Clinton in many progressive forums was completely offputting to many liberals. Consistently referring to someone who voted with Sanders 93% of the time while she was in the Senate and has a voting record to the left of Obama as Shillary was incredibly insulting and people got called on it and what's important they continued to double-down.

Clinton is by no means the most progressive politician on the planet. I readily concede that she is Center Left but there is no real indication from the voting to date that there is any real desire for a "revolution" on the part of the electorate so it seems like there has been an endorsement of incrementalism.

I can understand that is disappointing but the way to actually build a long lasting people-powered revolution isn't necessarily about looking at the top office in the land and focusing all attention on that it's about getting out with fellow progressives and campaigning and voting in every election you can because even though progressives weren't enough to win this nomination a decent turnout by progressive in local elections can result in very progressive policies at a local level all over the US.
posted by vuron at 12:01 PM on March 16, 2016 [20 favorites]


I have no idea what I'm being asked to do, exactly.

Not aimed at your personally, but at Sanders and his supporters generally -- how about

1) stop attacking Hillary personally. No need for "Shillary," "corrupt," "robot," etc.
2) tone down the rhetoric on highly debatable points such as "Hillary is a war-monger," "Hillary wants to outsource jobs," "Hillary opposed gay marriage" etc.

Make your points about campaign finance etc. on a system level or -- hey, crazy idea! -- use Trump, Cruz and Kasich as your punching bags.
posted by msalt at 12:05 PM on March 16, 2016 [20 favorites]


The other important thing to do is recognise the generational split in the Democratic vote and not allow millennials and first-time voters energised by Sanders to drift away from the Democratic Party and political engagement generally. And the key to doing that will be resisting the urge to fall back into the hippie-punching and condescension that the party establishment has traditionally reserved for its left-wing insurgencies.
posted by Sonny Jim at 12:07 PM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


It's just complicated in a way that I don't think the Hillary people understand. I really support Sanders because he is totally different than other candidates (I'm including Dean,Edwards, Kerry etc.). When Kerry was running against Edwards I think I supported Edwards but at the end of the day it didn't really matter and was easy to pivot. Howard Dean seemed like a breath of fresh air, but Edwards seemed to be better able to articulate problems working class people faced. Bernie is just totally different. He is turning the idea of what a politician is on its head. I'm really very enthusiastic about this part of it, in addition to being enthusiastic about his policies. I have always admired him, and I'm so very happy that he has made it this far, and I would love for him to be president. I couldn't possibly muster that type of enthusiasm for Clinton, and every time she exaggerates his record or tries to triangulate (like she did on abortion) I like her less and less. She can't become an anti-politician - it would be impossible for her to do so at this stage, although I admire her hutzpah in trying as of late! And I and I'm sure many of us will never really believe the blather she spews about coming together or whatever it is she is talking about. But there is really no universe in which I will be even remotely not bitter about how the primary was conducted, and that Bernie is not the candidate. I'm not saying I definitely won't vote for her, but I'm not going to canvas, call or be excited about her, and I'm a person who votes in every little local and state and federal election. The things Bernie talks about she can't talk about, and she doesn't want to. But the things he talks about are the things I've barely ever dreamed a mainstream presidential candidate would. It's been so galvanizing and so exciting to watch his campaign unfold. If it ends I will feel so defeated and let down. And that isn't the kind of thing that the DNC should want dems to feel going into the general election.
posted by goneill at 12:07 PM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sanders has no chance at the nomination. That's a function of how the primaries fall and which ones he has picked up delegates in. The primaries are effectively over even though there are many states still left to vote.

Clinton has picked up 58% of the pledged delegates so far. The math on remaining delegates says Sanders needs to win 58% of the remaining delegates to pass her count.

Polls in remaining states (some of them getting pretty stale now) suggest that's unlikely -- but the demographics from exit polls though say it's not that unlikely.
posted by Foosnark at 12:08 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm still excited for Sanders and believe I will be for years to come. I never expected, but I still have hope that he wins the nomination and presidency, and if that doesn't work out, advances the development of groups working for causes I hold dear.

But there's only so much vitriol directed at Sanders supporters that I'm willing to comment about online. Months ago I said that I'd vote Clinton if it's a close election like I did Kerry, and I still plan to. But between the positions that she holds which I strongly despise, various things she has said as a candidate in the past few weeks, and the heavyhanded attempts by her supporters here on the blue to force me to submit, I'm really starting to feel like a Clinton presidency is going to use perpetual hippy-punching to try to appease the right wing. Is this fear unfounded?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 12:09 PM on March 16, 2016 [16 favorites]


White millenials have flocked to Sanders in amazing numbers but the Democratic party is extremely dependent on African-American and Latino voters for national elections and Sanders completely failed to generate messaging that worked for those communities.

Millennials of color also overwhelmingly voted for Sanders.

Consistently referring to someone who voted with Sanders 93% of the time while she was in the Senate

Another reason I think Sanders is doing better among millennials is that many millennials have a more global view of politics. Someone's voting record in the Senate is important, but being a liberal in the US Senate is not the same thing as being a leftist in the global sense.

I can understand that is disappointing but the way to actually build a long lasting people-powered revolution isn't necessarily about looking at the top office in the land

Many Sanders supporters are also doing this. And will be doing this with more intensity as we get closer to the general election. But part of that is giving the local candidates the space within the party to be to the left of the presidential nominee. If no one is allowed to criticize Clinton from the left, how are the local progressive candidates supposed to be able to run within the Democratic party?
posted by melissasaurus at 12:11 PM on March 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


I'm really starting to feel like a Clinton presidency is going to use perpetual hippy-punching to try to appease the right wing. Is this fear unfounded?

Yes
posted by msalt at 12:11 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yes

I'm sure you can guess how much that reassures me.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 12:13 PM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Clinton has picked up 58% of the pledged delegates so far. The math on remaining delegates says Sanders needs to win 58% of the remaining delegates to pass her count.

Polls in remaining states (some of them getting pretty stale now) suggest that's unlikely -- but the demographics from exit polls though say it's not that unlikely.


I think you may be conflating sort of overall percentages with state percentages in a way that may not work. Another way to put what Sanders needs to do is that he needs to win every state primary from now on. Every single one. Is that possible in an infinite universe? Yes. Is it at all likely for any reasonable non-Powerball value of possible? I don't think so.
posted by OmieWise at 12:14 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


2) tone down the rhetoric on highly debatable points such as "Hillary is a war-monger," "Hillary wants to outsource jobs," "Hillary opposed gay marriage" etc.

She voted for Iraq. She opposed gay marriage. These are not debatable points.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:15 PM on March 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


Please, when has Hillary ever punched a hippy, especially on this campaign trail?
posted by entropicamericana at 12:16 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


She turned me into a newt!

Well, I got better.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:17 PM on March 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


Clinton's current inevitability won't stop me from voting Sanders in the primary, and voting third party in the general. I think a lot of folks feel that way.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:17 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yes, it's unfounded. Politics is a long game and Sanders did remarkably well at generating a campaign to challenge Clinton. The way to honor that is to analyze what his campaign did right and what it did wrong so that the next progressive candidate is even stronger and electable.

It's also about growing the bench and using activist power to present alternatives especially on a local level.

Stay fired up and keep fighting because there are probably more Anita Alvarez's in local elections in your neck of the woods and progressives can make a massive difference at local levels.

In the meantime look around at the Democratic bench and find someone that you really believe in and support their career and engage with them and sometime down the road we might be looking at a Warren 2024 or something similar.
posted by vuron at 12:18 PM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


I'm really starting to feel like a Clinton presidency is going to use perpetual hippy-punching to try to appease the right wing. Is this fear unfounded?


There's no real way to walk people back from this.

I feel like some Sanders supporters feel ideologically attached to him the way Trump supporters do - that some of their political identity is wrapped up in this person.
posted by zutalors! at 12:20 PM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


On the national level, candidates with Sanders's politics have been relegated to the third-party fringe for as long as I've been alive. His run, which was far more successful than anyone predicted, signals that it's possible to campaign for things like free college and socialized healthcare and get millions of votes. I expect to see a surge of Sanders-inspired progressive candidates at all levels in the years to come, and I think this could be a better result than many Sanders supporters dared hope just six months ago.
posted by theodolite at 12:20 PM on March 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


She voted for Iraq. She opposed gay marriage. These are not debatable points.

Actually, both are highly debatable.

The Iraq AUMF was carefully obfuscated by Bush precisely not to be an up or down vote on the war -- it was giving the President power to act if he wasn't able to get sufficient concessions from Saddam. I'm not claiming Hillary was fooled but it was at least debatable, and harder to vote against as a result.

On gay marriage, Hillary was no more and no less opposed to gay marriage than Bernie Sanders was -- just a bit later to embrace gay marriage, reflecting the fact that her constituency was not as liberal as his. Both supported civil unions and opposed gay marriage for a long time -- Sanders as late as 2006.
posted by msalt at 12:21 PM on March 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


and voting third party in the general. I think a lot of folks feel that way.

See, this is why we should focus on Trump. If you vote 3rd Party, maybe you could try getting Trump supporters to do the same?

That makes it win-win, right? Your third party gets a vote and Trump gets one less vote.
posted by FJT at 12:21 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Please, when has Hillary ever punched a hippy, especially on this campaign trail?

Clinton, in my opinion, does not recognize the value of protest. You can see this with the initial AIDS statement (I know she walked it back, but it still happened and hasn't been explained) and her statement on the Trump protests. There are roles for people working within the system, there are roles for people agitating against the system, and there are roles for people routing around the system. I think it's important for a president to recognize all of those roles, and I'm not sure that she does.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:21 PM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


Clinton has picked up 58% of the pledged delegates so far. The math on remaining delegates says Sanders needs to win 58% of the remaining delegates to pass her count.

Polls in remaining states (some of them getting pretty stale now) suggest that's unlikely -- but the demographics from exit polls though say it's not that unlikely.


It is that unlikely. Sanders has lost 19 contests and won 9 contests. If he needs 58% of remaining pledged delegates, we can estimate that he could now win every single one of the 28 remaining contests, by 15 points, and still lose the nomination. Sanders' path to victory consists of Clinton getting indicted, and soon.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:21 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


1) stop attacking Hillary personally. No need for "Shillary," "corrupt," "robot," etc.
2) tone down the rhetoric on highly debatable points such as "Hillary is a war-monger," "Hillary wants to outsource jobs," "Hillary opposed gay marriage" etc.


I'm very much in favor of treating candidates with respect; Hillary has been a punching bag for Republicans just for being a woman, a Democrat, and part of Obama's cabinet quite unfairly enough thanks.

But I don't think you can tell Bernie supporters that they're not allowed to mention NAFTA, Iraq, her until-recently opposition to marriage equality, the rather suspicious Saudi/Boeing-->Clinton Foundation-->F-15 thing, Goldman Sachs speaking fees, etc. Those are legitimate matters of concern, and the kind of shenanigans we don't want any more of in the next 4 or 8 years.
posted by Foosnark at 12:22 PM on March 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


On gay marriage, Hillary was no more and no less opposed to gay marriage than Bernie Sanders was -- just a bit later to embrace gay marriage, reflecting the fact that her constituency was not as liberal as his. Both supported civil unions and opposed gay marriage for a long time -- Sanders as late as 2006.

Sanders was on the floor of Congress defending gay people in the 1990s, however.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:22 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


She voted for Iraq. She opposed gay marriage. These are not debatable points.

Fine, take them as facts. How and what they mean, and how they are talked about now, have an impact that is not necessarily related to the fact itself. There is a choice here, there really is. If a vote for Iraq, at the time and place it was cast, is a disqualifier, then it is. But it still doesn't make Clinton responsible for Iraq. If opposition to gay marriage at the time and place she opposed it (or said she did) is a deal breaker, then it is. But it doesn't make her responsible for homophobia.
posted by OmieWise at 12:23 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders was on the floor of Congress defending gay people in the 1990s, however.

That's great, but it wasn't the original point.
posted by OmieWise at 12:25 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just want to know why if people say 'I want a woman in the White House, just not that woman' about Hillary I can't say 'I want a progressive in the White House, just not that one' about Sanders.
posted by zutalors! at 12:25 PM on March 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


tivalasvegas: Meanwhile Kasich can probably lock in the swingiest of swing states without which, I believe, Republicans have never (?), or never in modern times (?) won the White House. And, y'know, he has actual governing experience.

He seems like a nice enough sort of Republican, until you look at his record on attacking Women's Rights, and Same Sex Marriage (until he lost). "So, GOP, take a closer look at John Kasich. Because while these other chumps makes empty promises to do awful stuff, this so-called 'moderate' gets awful stuff done." (To women.)
posted by filthy light thief at 12:26 PM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


honestly, shillary is like whichhillary to me - both sound just enough like a sexist attack to make it stick, and just enough not to give those who use them cover. i'm unimpressed.
posted by nadawi at 12:26 PM on March 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


Honestly, I think there's going to have to be a lot of fence-mending on both sides. I'm pretty fed up with Sanders supporters at the moment, and I'm going to have to get over it if I'm going to throw myself into the general election in the same way that I have for the past couple of cycles. Because part of me thinks that if you guys are so morally and intellectually and otherwise superior, maybe you should do the work, because you certainly seem to think that you'll be a lot better at it. I'm sure I'll get over it, but you aren't really making it any easier. And I'm not sure you realize how much you radiate contempt for the people who disagree with you.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:27 PM on March 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


I mean, yeah, the bottom line is that Clinton is going to have to do a DEEP DIVE to get Sanders supporters to vote for her. She's going to have to swing left, or she's going to lose.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:28 PM on March 16, 2016


Sanders was on the floor of Congress defending gay people in the 1990s, however.

Which makes his openly political decision to oppose gay marriage even in liberal Vermont in 2006 all the more craven.
posted by msalt at 12:28 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


i voted for bernie in the primary. i'm glad to vote for hillary in the general. just because you're not in the same boat doesn't mean all or even most bernie supporters are with you. i don't think she has to deep dive much at all to get a pretty sizable amount of bernie's supporters who would consider any other democrat candidate.
posted by nadawi at 12:30 PM on March 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


and the heavyhanded attempts by her supporters here on the blue to force me to submit, I'm really starting to feel like a Clinton presidency is going to use perpetual hippy-punching to try to appease the right wing. Is this fear unfounded?

I used to be an active Bernie supporter, but the sheer misogyny I witnessed first hand from Bernie supporters on reddit (yeah, I know- my mistake going there) and directed at comedian Jen Kirkman on twitter made me disgusted and take a step back. I agree with Bernie's positions more and will vote for him in my primary, but I will still vote for HRC in the general. My SO is a non-white immigrant, so I don't have the privilege of being picky at this point. There is a very real safety issue for people I love if Donald Trump becomes president, so I don't look at is a vote for Hillary, I look at it as a vote against racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and violence as a form of political discourse.
posted by bluecore at 12:30 PM on March 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


roomthreeseventeen: She's going to have to swing left, or she's going to lose.

Or, she could get far enough on the simple campaign slogan: "I'm Not Donald Trump."

"I promise that I am not, and have never been, Donald Trump." *YAAAAAH*
posted by filthy light thief at 12:31 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think this is why this year is so crazy. She might lose, if she was running against say Romney, or McCain with a less terrifying vice president. Just like Trump might lose, if he was against any Democrat but the woman who's been pilloried by the right-wing for decades, perhaps the only scarier person to them than Obama. Someone set the polarization level to maximum and there's no turning back.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:32 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just want to know why if people say 'I want a woman in the White House, just not that woman' about Hillary I can't say 'I want a progressive in the White House, just not that one' about Sanders.

I totally think people can say both. And I get what you're saying about some Sanders supporters being more interested in him than his policies. I'm sure that is the case for some people. That hasn't been the case among my personal circle of Bernie-supporting friends. We mostly see Bernie as a consistent voice in the progressive movement, who has been trying to get someone to primary challenge the establishment Democrat for a long time, and finally just said "ok, no one wants to step up, I guess I'll do it." As someone who has been pushed into leadership positions by default (because I was the most enthusiastic voice not because I actually wanted to be the leader), that's the feeling I get. That he would much rather have endorsed and supported Warren or another progressive candidate than actually run for president himself. I can see that not everyone sees it that way. It's just my perspective.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:32 PM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


I mean, maybe? We don't really have any idea how Donald Trump is going to fare once he turns his attentions to Clinton.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:32 PM on March 16, 2016




I just want to know why if people say 'I want a woman in the White House, just not that woman' about Hillary I can't say 'I want a progressive in the White House, just not that one' about Sanders.

You can say it. But can you explain it?

I'd be delighted to support, say, Elizabeth Warren instead of Bernie Sanders. Or Jill Stein (in fact, I will if Bernie loses the nomination). Or anyone else running a grassroots campaign on a social democracy platform, with the kind of activist history such that I could expect them to actually fight for their platform once they get in office. It's not about Bernie, it's about the rest of that stuff.

The reason I don't want Hillary in the White House has zilch to do with her gender and everything to do with the fact that she's not a progressive and that there are alternatives actually running on the things I care about.
posted by Foosnark at 12:33 PM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


She voted for Iraq. She opposed gay marriage. These are not debatable points.

Actually, both are highly debatable.

The Iraq AUMF was carefully obfuscated by Bush precisely not to be an up or down vote on the war -- it was giving the President power to act if he wasn't able to get sufficient concessions from Saddam. I'm not claiming Hillary was fooled but it was at least debatable, and harder to vote against as a result.


If Bush is capable of fooling you into voting for a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people you probably shouldn't be President.

On gay marriage, Hillary was no more and no less opposed to gay marriage than Bernie Sanders was

Okay? That doesn't change that Hillary opposed gay marriage.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:35 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Gov. Rick Scott of Florida Endorses Donald Trump

“With his victories yesterday, I believe it is now time for Republicans to accept and respect the will of the voters and coalesce behind Donald Trump”
posted by dhens at 12:35 PM on March 16, 2016


Sanders was on the floor of Congress defending gay people in the 1990s, however.

He literally opposed gay marriage until 10 years ago. Defending ≠ treating as equals.

I think Clinton's opposition to gay marriage was deplorable. I think Sanders' was too. Neither occupies the moral high ground on this issue, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell us something.

They both helped perpetuate inequality in an entire segment of our population. They've both now come around and seen the light of civilization and equality, just as hundreds of other lawmakers have. But no, she's not better or worse than he is on this issue. For a portion of their careers in public service, they both saw gay people treated like second class citizens and thought, "eh, civil marriages are good enough for those people."
posted by zarq at 12:37 PM on March 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


Millennials of color also overwhelmingly voted for Sanders.

That's not true. They voted for Sanders in some places and Clinton in other places.
posted by Justinian at 12:38 PM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]



You can say it. But can you explain it?


I have, several times on this site. I don't have time right this minute but absolutely I have watched a lot of his campaign and decided I didn't want to support it. But I was on the line between Clinton and Sanders until February.
posted by zutalors! at 12:38 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Another thing I said earlier is that Trumpism is dependent on Trump. Yes, he's articulating a lot of ideas that the Republican base and disaffected Democrats have wanted but never been satisfied by elites. But he's doing in such a scattershot, strongman type way that makes it almost central to his own personality. There will be nativist anti-free trade populists after him, but they'll be doing things differently, and might not have the unique appeal that Trump has found. The Tea Party's base wanted a lot of things, but they were ultimately led by ideologues who were limited by their doctrine. Trump's strength is that his popularity is based on him, who knows no doctrine and so he can make wild promises every which way and cover them up with his blustering personality. But that's also the weakness of his "movement": without him, it can't exist in the same way.

Sanders is different. Because while his campaign has a lot of his personality injected into it, he's running a very policy-focused race. His class war style can be duplicated. His incorruptibility and all-about-the-issues style can be duplicated. Yes, his personality is focusing the movement, because it is about his candidacy after all, but once his candidacy is over, the movement can still march on.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:39 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Me: On gay marriage, Hillary was no more and no less opposed to gay marriage than Bernie Sanders was
Drinky Die: Okay? That doesn't change that Hillary opposed gay marriage.

Every national politician in the US -- including Bernie Sanders -- opposed gay marriage until recently, as did the vast majority of the US population. It's a democracy. (The only possible exception might be congressman Jerrold Nadler and I'm not even sure about him.)

But what is the point of attacking Hillary for that? She supports gay marriage now. Meanwhile, every Republican candidate advocates not only banning it, but doing so in a constitutional amendment as well as appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.

So it's very hard to see what the value of attacking her in this way is, when the only possible outcome would be to help elect a virulently anti-gay marriage president.
posted by msalt at 12:43 PM on March 16, 2016 [17 favorites]


But what is the point of attacking Hillary for that? She supports gay marriage now.

To ask the next questions, which should be asked of any candidate who opposed gay marriage: How are you ensuring that you do not make the same mistake again? What are you doing to ensure that the next civil rights issue is not as hard of a battle as that was? What will you do when public opinion is not in favor of [next civil rights issue]? What do you see as the role of protest in America?

It's one thing to correct the mistake and finally get it right, but you have to also address what led you to make the mistake in the first place. Saying "everybody else did it too" is not very reassuring to people who might be the subject of the next battle.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:51 PM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sanders was on the floor of Congress defending gay people in the 1990s, however.

I have no memory of what roles Hillary versus Bill took in it, especially not in the area of public argumentation, but people forget that the reason DADT existed was because the Clintons pushed for simply dropping the ban against gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members and that this provoked an unholy shitstorm of public outrage and congressional action.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:52 PM on March 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


So it's very hard to see what the value of attacking her in this way

There seems to be a lot of ground between what some people consider attacking and other consider discussion.
posted by phearlez at 12:54 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I"m sorry, Bill Clinton not only passed DADT, but DOMA. Let's not be revisionist here.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:54 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


We don't really have any idea how Donald Trump is going to fare once he turns his attentions to Clinton.

I'm not sure I understand this. It's literally true, in the same way it is about Trump v. Sanders, or anyone v. anyone. I also understand that there is some fear that Trump will attack Clinton from the left on trade. But we know who Trump is, what he's said, the people he has worked hard to alienate, the dogwhistles he's deployed. So we have a pretty good idea, in that sense, of what the likely limits of his appeal are going to be. Is there some reason to discount those limits? Are there demographic/exit poll data that show that his bases of support are broad enough to overcome those limits?

I guess I'm asking whether this is just rhetorical in a kind of bogeyman way, or if there is some substance to it.

I also wonder how anyone not in a safe Dem state could feel like that about it and vote 3rd party.
posted by OmieWise at 12:55 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


But Bill Clinton isn't running for office, I wish that people would stop trying to conflate Hillary and Bill's record like she's some sort of damned puppet. Do you agree with your spouse on every issue? I sure as hell don't.
posted by vuron at 12:58 PM on March 16, 2016 [17 favorites]


To ask the next questions, which should be asked of any candidate who opposed gay marriage: How are you ensuring that you do not make the same mistake again? What are you doing to ensure that the next civil rights issue is not as hard of a battle as that was? What will you do when public opinion is not in favor of [next civil rights issue]? What do you see as the role of protest in America?

These are all great questions, really great. They are not an attack at all. They are also not contained anywhere in anything resembling "FACT: Clinton opposed gay marriage."

That's why the distinctions in how the discussion are conducted matter. The former is something Clinton should absolutely answer to, the latter is not something that should stand as a proxy for that conversation, in large part because it's being used to simply say Clinton is inadequate.
posted by OmieWise at 12:58 PM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


i'm glad dadt is gone and it should have been repealed a lot earlier, but at the time it was better than the previous status quo of banning all non-heterosexual people from service. do people who try to list that as a negative for bill clinton think the ban was better?
posted by nadawi at 12:58 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


The fact that it used to be completely politically unfeasible to support gay marriage and now (for the Dems) the opposite is true is a perfect example of progressive advocacy successfully influencing the national conversation. I can't understand why Clinton changing her mind about this is supposed to be a bad thing. Isn't this exactly what we want politicians to do? Consider new perspectives and learn and grow and shit?
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:58 PM on March 16, 2016 [22 favorites]


I just wrote a big screed on climate change and how both parties are basically ignoring it in favor of other issues, but deleted it because it's off topic.

But I do want to remind everybody that 8 more years of doing nothing on climate change is going to lead to some very ugly and irreversible changes, like creating a new world coastline (and obliterating where at least 25% of the human population currently lives in the process). Bernie spoke about it, but it wasn't central to his platform. Hillary barely mentions it as an afterthought. Trump will run full steam ahead on the fossil fuel train.

At this point, I think we need to all pray for a technological solution, because the world shows no signs of stopping its fossil fuel death march.
posted by zug at 1:01 PM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Please, when has Hillary ever punched a hippy, especially on this campaign trail?

When she blatantly and repeatedly misrespresented Sen. Sanders' support for the ACA, and refused to defend even in principle a single-payer system?

When she said that Nancy Reagan, and not gay activists, were responsible for starting a conversation on HIV/AIDS?

When she tells us not to worry about the fact that she's consistently been the most hawkish member of a not-particularly-dovish Administration?

When she brushes off releasing those damn transcripts?

Usually when you have a primary opponent, you tack toward their positions. But I actually believed Sec. Clinton to be more liberal at the start of this primary season than I believe her to be now that I've heard more from her. So, not a great job at winning over this progressive.

Sec. Clinton is damn lucky that she has such horrifying opponents in the general. If she were up against someone with the stature and relative moderation of a John McCain, she'd be bleeding moderates to her right and progressives to her left.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:02 PM on March 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


i'm glad dadt is gone and it should have been repealed a lot earlier, but at the time it was better than the previous status quo of banning all non-heterosexual people from service. do people who try to list that as a negative for bill clinton think the ban was better?

After the policy was introduced in 1993, the military discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT (wiki)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:03 PM on March 16, 2016


i feel like Obama being the first sitting President to support marriage equality outright gave a huge support to people who had already been working hard to make it the law of the land.

It wasn't his work as much as theirs, but he legitimized theirs in an important way.

For a candidate who already supported marriage equality to enter the national stage like Sanders, I don't think that would have been possible in 2008 or 2004.
posted by zutalors! at 1:04 PM on March 16, 2016


that's not actually an answer - do you think the absolute ban on non-heterosexuals was better?
posted by nadawi at 1:04 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


(tivalasvegas: my comment was sarcastic, but i sincerely thank you for citing the examples i was entirely too lazy to google and add as hyperlinks.)
posted by entropicamericana at 1:05 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


that's not actually an answer - do you think the absolute ban on non-heterosexuals was better?

I think DADT functioned as a ban.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:05 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think it's great when politicians grow and change. I think this election was a bit different though, because we had one candidate who's mostly been saying the same thing for 30 years and one who has changed as the country changed. There are issues they both got wrong. There are some issues Clinton got right but Sanders didn't (gun control, though I guess that's a bad thing for some people). But I think that Clinton suffered in this election specifically because her opponent happened to be someone who did get it right, 30 years ago, on a lot of issues. It's easy to say "well, everyone evolves over time." And that's often true and a good response. It's just that this year we have the option of someone who didn't have to evolve (on some issues) in order to get it right.

I think Clinton is currently on the wrong side of history on the death penalty. I think she's currently on the wrong side of history on late-term abortion restrictions. I think she's on the wrong side of history on foreign intervention. For a lot of other issues, I think she's ideologically in the right place but doesn't think it's possible pragmatically, and I think that can't really be analyzed the same way.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:06 PM on March 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


Sec. Clinton is damn lucky that she has such horrifying opponents in the general. If she were up against someone with the stature and relative moderation of a John McCain, she'd be bleeding moderates to her right and progressives to her left.

If Jon Huntsman had run instead of Kasich...
posted by Apocryphon at 1:07 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just want to know why if people say 'I want a woman in the White House, just not that woman' about Hillary I can't say 'I want a progressive in the White House, just not that one' about Sanders.

You can say it. But can you explain it?


Well, here's how Bernie lost me. I started this election excited about Sanders and somewhat negative about Clinton. I voted for Obama in 2008 and I'm pretty left, politically, I think. If I could wave a wand and turn the US into Scandanavia tomorrow I would.

But then I wanted to know more about how he was going to manage to accomplish all these lefty goals when nobody else has been able to. And I felt like I got two answers from his campaign. One was: magic. There will be a revolution. The country will spontaneously shift left of where it has been for the past 70 years despite staggering evidence to the contrary (like the GOP candidate field). The other was this idea that nobody! on the history of the left in America! Has ever actually wanted the things Bernie wants. And if they say they do they are liars.

But I remember the Clintons in the 90s. I remember the vitriol Hillary got just for wanting to keep some semblance of her maiden name. I remember how a lot of that bananas black-helicopter, communist takeover, new world order happened because she fought for universal healthcare which was going to be the undoing of american capitalism. Hillary has a point when she asked where was Bernie in the 90s on healthcare. He was sitting behind her, but she was leading the charge.

And that's where I think the generational divide on Bernie/Hillary comes to play. If you don't actually remember anybody fighting for things like universal healthcare, or better conditions for the poor and working classes, or reaching out to minority communities, it makes sense to believe that the only reason that things aren't better is that nobody has ever wanted it before (or been good enough, smart enough, whatever enough).

And I think that's part of why Hillary is so villainized. She's fought for a lot but not accomplished as much as we want. If you want to believe that we can move quickly and dramatically left of where we are, you have to believe that something is really wrong with the people who have tried so far. And it certainly helps to have 30 years of right-wing propaganda in the background to buy into. I mean, people are disappointed in Obama, but she's demonstrably to the left of him and nobody accuses him of being a corporate-pandering, war-mongering wolf in sheep's clothing.

I mean, I see the appeal of Fun Dad vs Mean Mom. Fun Dad says chocolate cake and $15 minimum wage and free college and universal helathcare. Mean Mom says oatmeal and a $12 minimum wage and cheaper college and incremental improvements in healthcare.

But looking at Sanders' angry, stubborn style, and the actual realities of what is accomplishable by the executive office as opposed to state legislatures (like most of health care and college education), I think Sanders' style will not serve him -- or the country -- well in the executive office.

Don't get me wrong. I have enormous admiration for him as a senator, I think he's a fantastic protest candidate. I hope he continues to fight the good fight. But he's not my choice for president.

One good thing that has come of this is that it has forced me to look at a what of what Hillary says and has done.

Here's a brief list of her accomplishments that I admire:

Domestically she was instrumental in:
Enacting Lily Ledbetter Fairy Pay Act (the first bill signed into law by Obama)
the Paycheck Fairness act
developing the Children’s Health Insurance Program which has improved access to health care for millions of children in poverty
the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, a bill that increased foster adoptions by 64%, encouraged adoption of children with special needs, and provided support and services to adoptive families
the Pediatric Research Equity Act, which is responsible for changing the drug labeling of hundreds of drugs with information about safety and dosing for children
the fight in the Senate to raise the minimum wage
legislation that helped first responders after 9/11 get healthcare and treatment

Globally she was key to:
negotiating a ceasefire between Isarael and Hamas
compelling China to commit to cut carbon emissions
the START Treaty, a landmark revision of our nuclear arms agreement with Russia
securing $63B in aid to poor women globally

She also:
stood before representatives of nations like Uganda and Russia and said that gay rights are human rights
is credited by her colleagues in the state department with restoring the US' global reputation after travesty of Bush presidency

I have come full circle from disdaining her to being enthusiastic about her, though of course if Sanders is the nominee I will naturally vote for him in the general.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:08 PM on March 16, 2016 [68 favorites]


I"m sorry, Bill Clinton not only passed DADT, but DOMA. Let's not be revisionist here.

Yes, let's not be revisiionist! Bill Clinton came charging out of the gate with a lot of liberal initiatives and got pushed back by a very strong conservative backlash, including on gay rights. Let's not forget that he was the first Democratic president after 12 years of Ronald Reagan and his hand-picked successor George HW Bush.

DADT was a compromise measure -- widely considered a stroke of political genius at the time -- that was the first official military policy that did not criminalize being gay. It didn't work out well in practice but no one could have predicted it at the time.

DOMA was a rear-guard effort attempting to head off very strong pressure for a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage, after court rulings in Hawaii and (yes) Vermont pushed the issue onto the political agenda before the public was ready for it.

In 2004, the Republican backlash against gay marriage won them a number of congressional and senate seats, and I would argue was the only thing that got George W. Bush re-elected. (I just heard a Republican pundit on CBS News complaining that Bush did not deliver on his promise for an anti-gay marriage consitutional amendment that year.) It was a huge base-mobilizing issues for Republicans who had precious little else to campaign on. 13 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage just that year.

So it's easy now to attack Sanders and Clinton for not pushing gay marriage harder in the mid-2000s but doing so would have seriously risked a constitutional amendment that might well have passed and made the ban permanent.
posted by msalt at 1:09 PM on March 16, 2016 [23 favorites]


I feel like some Sanders supporters feel ideologically attached to him the way Trump supporters do - that some of their political identity is wrapped up in this person.

Possibly true for a few redditor types, but not for the vast majority, and it's kind of an insulting way to put it. Sanders supporters have been the most substantive, policy-focused group of supporters I think I've ever seen. I think Adam Johnson had a good tweet about this: "Unlike 2008 which was largely a difference in personality this division in dem party has ideological basis & is thus more difficult to mend." The vast majority of Sanders supporters have been focused on policy and record, not as much the personality stuff as was arguably more the case for Obama in 2008, and it is going to take policy concessions to get them to feel good about supporting Clinton.

There are probably a few options there, if she actually wanted to appeal to Sanders voters beyond shallow rhetorical tokens. A real show of good faith would be a real promise against not just already-dead Keystone but future pipelines like the Alberta Clipper, or against not just nearly-dead TPP but future unbalanced trade agreements, or against escalation of hostilities and regime change in the Middle East. Personally, I want a promise that she isn't going to 'reform' Social Security the same way Bill 'reformed' welfare and wanted to 'reform'/privatize Social Security, or the way Obama tried to cut Social Security, chain it to CPI, and raise the retirement age - unprompted! - as part of a grand debt ceiling bargain. All the better if she would just promise to increase the cap on Social Security taxed income - maybe that's something Sanders could use his delegates to get into the platform. It is profoundly distressing that she doesn't already support that, especially since I'm already seeing a lot of grand bargain "yay, now we get to reform Social Security" (e.g.) stuff from all the centrist wonks who love her and it's already driving me to despair.

But what is the point of attacking Hillary for that?

Gay people are allowed to make their own estimations of who supports them and who doesn't. Hillary Clinton's support of DOMA and continuing discomfort with gay issues (which doesn't actually seem to be motivated by concerns about an amendment based on the evidence) is an issue for me supporting her and I will continue to talk about it, thanks. Bernie has been a better ally throughout his career, in my (queer) opinion, which I am allowed to continue to hold and allowed to express. I believe that having Democrats give cover to "ok, maybe gay people are bad, but we think they're 50% less bad than the other guys" was really damaging - there's an "even the Democrats think this is wrong" aspect that is understated in these discussions that was actually really damaging to young queer kids like me at the time.

I don't know if people realize how counterproductive the "you are allowed to keep being a leftist, but now you need to shut up about it" stuff really is. Please stop conflating substantive criticism with attacks. The left is allowed to express its opinion, if nothing else. I can't think of any group of people less likely to respond positively to the "shut up for the good of the party" argument, anyway - it's just a poor way to reach this group.
posted by dialetheia at 1:09 PM on March 16, 2016 [25 favorites]


Usually when you have a primary opponent, you tack toward their positions.

I've missed the ways Sanders has moved towards Clinton's positions on numerous issues. Could you please list a few?
posted by zarq at 1:12 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


and nobody accuses him of being a corporate-pandering, war-mongering wolf in sheep's clothing.

i urge you to refer to my comment history and others like me for proof otherwise.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:14 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


only in it for the hat

Make America Grape Again
posted by spitbull at 1:14 PM on March 16, 2016


I've missed the ways Sanders has moved towards Clinton's positions on numerous issues. Could you please list a few?

Gun control is about the only one I can come up with.
posted by Justinian at 1:22 PM on March 16, 2016


Well, here's how Bernie lost me...

Thanks, I respect your thought process and your choice, even if I disagree about the kind of leadership we need right now.
posted by Foosnark at 1:24 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


queer people, like any group, are not a monolith - as a queer bernie voter, i support hillary and trust her commitment to gay rights, even if i wish she had come to it earlier. i also support the dadt compromise when it happened and don't think it's fair to blame bill clinton for it taking so long to get rid of. i think the absolute ban was far worse and some compromise measure was going to have to come between the ban and full allowance.
posted by nadawi at 1:27 PM on March 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


Gun control is about the only one I can come up with.

Nope. As a Senator he was consistently for closing the gun show loophole, barring military assault weapons from civilian ownership, barring criminals from gun ownership and for not holding gun shop owners responsible for gun violence. While maintaining his Senate seat in a state with no gun control laws, he voted for what he referred to as "sensible gun control."

He's changed none of those positions (as far as I know) since he started talking about gun control on the campaign trail in December.
posted by zarq at 1:28 PM on March 16, 2016



I feel like some Sanders supporters feel ideologically attached to him the way Trump supporters do - that some of their political identity is wrapped up in this person.

Possibly true for a few redditor types, but not for the vast majority, and it's kind of an insulting way to put it.


FWIW I said some, and didn't mean you. But some people here do seem really wrapped up in Sanders the Persona to me and I find it really uncomfortable and a weird part of his campaign. Like some said he didn't have to answer a question about how he was going to pass his policies without a supermajority, because he was going to get it, and that's that. I've never heard that kind of thing about other candidates besides Trump - he's going to get everything through where others have failed, because of his massive groundswell of support.

When it seemed like Bernie wasn't getting a revolution, I expected him to pivot at least a little to making more substantive claims in debates and speeches - but all of his policies are wrapped in each other and none of them allow any room for compromise of any kind.

That makes me super uncomfortable. I don't want to put all my faith in one man.

I agree with you though that there's no reason for anyone who considers themselves "the left" (and this is not limited to people who want Sanders to be the POTUS) to criticize candidates as they want.
posted by zutalors! at 1:30 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yes, let's not be revisiionist! Bill Clinton came charging out of the gate with a lot of liberal initiatives and got pushed back by a very strong conservative backlash, including on gay rights... DADT was a compromise measure -- widely considered a stroke of political genius at the time -- that was the first official military policy that did not criminalize being gay. It didn't work out well in practice but no one could have predicted it at the time.

Agreed. I have a bit of side-eye for Sec. Clinton on how vehemently she seems to have defended traditional marriage in the mid '00s but I really don't hold DADT against her at all; I think it's easy for us to forget how far and fast we've actually come on gay rights.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:30 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


it frankly doesn't much make sense to think about hillary at all when it comes to dadt or doma since she wasn't the president at the time. but women will always hold more blame for what the men in their sphere do...
posted by nadawi at 1:33 PM on March 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


um, also what pocketfullofrye said. Great post!
posted by zutalors! at 1:34 PM on March 16, 2016


don't know if people realize how counterproductive the "you are allowed to keep being a leftist, but now you need to shut up about it" stuff really is. Please stop conflating substantive criticism with attacks.

Yeah, but at the same time, there's kind of a tense stand off thing going on in these topics. Everyone here talks about the Republican race or makes nice and then somebody shares a snarky remark or criticism about Clinton or sometimes Sanders. And then suddenly both sides begins unloading on each other for half the day. When we're all either tired or bored, it dies down, but we all know everyone's just reloading until the next cycle continues.

That's also kind of counterproductive and demoralizing too, and not always a great way to produce thoughtful discussion. Sometimes it is, but other times it just becomes a ritual of angry noise.
posted by FJT at 1:34 PM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


Every national politician in the US -- including Bernie Sanders -- opposed gay marriage until recently, as did the vast majority of the US population. It's a democracy. (The only possible exception might be congressman Jerrold Nadler and I'm not even sure about him.)

But what is the point of attacking Hillary for that?


To let people know bigotry is not easily forgiven. The Republicans are going to start evolving on this too soon, and I hope we don't let them forget what they did.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:35 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]




To let people know bigotry is not easily forgiven.

Apparently it is. Otherwise, Sanders' record would also be addressed.
posted by zarq at 1:40 PM on March 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


i'm all about letting people know prior bigotry or lack of intestinal fortitude isn't easily forgiven, but i don't see the point of bernie supporters acting like hillary is so far away from him on this issue. if we're holding people accountable, his feet should be right next to hers in the fire. they've both "evolved" and found better ways to support gay people - yay! - but they've also both stumbled pretty mightily on the way there.
posted by nadawi at 1:41 PM on March 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


Apparently it is. Otherwise, Sanders record would also be addressed.

His record has pretty widely been discussed as well.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:43 PM on March 16, 2016


I think the Clinton/Sanders divide also depends on how you view the compromise proposals happening. Part of the frustration with the Democrats' triangulation is compromising before it's clear that you have to, being afraid of being painted as socialists/liberals (even though they'd get that label regardless of what they do). It's one thing to end up with a compromise that doesn't really please either side. It's another to propose that compromise as the starting point. I'm pragmatic about how the policies will actually look when they're signed. But I'm idealistic when starting the negotiation. I want single payer no-cost-at-point-of-access health care. Maybe that's not possible in the next 10 years, but why should I pretend that my goal is anything other than that? To have it possible in 10 years, we have to start the transitional legislation now. I think we should have unrestricted access to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, no questions asked. I'm not going to make concessions on that issue until there really is a valid threat of constitutional amendment banning all abortions. I guess I wish the Democrats would start triangulating to the left instead of to the center.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:45 PM on March 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


i think we have to support democratic candidates in mid terms and downticket races way, way better before we get to stop compromising all the damn time. i'm totally sick of it too - but my state sent tom cotton to washington, so it's hard for me to put the blame on the executive branch.
posted by nadawi at 1:49 PM on March 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


The Internet finally mashed up Hamilton and Donald Trump

I should have seen that coming.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:49 PM on March 16, 2016


His record has pretty widely been discussed as well.

Not on Metafilter. Not on this issue. Certainly not at the same frequency between both candidates in any of the debate / election threads we've had so far. Tons of comments have complained about Clinton's record on gay marriage. For the most part, Sanders' similar record isn't mentioned.

I'm all for holding candidates responsible for the things they've done. And for the things they haven't done. But maintaining double standards by complaining about one candidate while ignoring the other's record on the same issue is idiotic.

They both fucked up. That's not a ringing endorsement for either of them.
posted by zarq at 1:50 PM on March 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


"They both fucked up" doesn't describe Clinton's continued missteps on HIV/AIDS (not only the Reagan gaffe, but the fact that her HIV policy is hidden under LGBT rights on her website, and other reasons).
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:51 PM on March 16, 2016


Not on Metafilter.

I disagree. *shrug*
posted by Drinky Die at 1:52 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


i think we have to support democratic candidates in mid terms and downticket races way, way better before we get to stop compromising all the damn time. i'm totally sick of it too - but my state sent tom cotton to washington, so it's hard for me to put the blame on the executive branch.

I feel that. I spent the last 10 years on the upper west side of Manhattan, so I imagine my experience with local politics is very different from people who live in purple/red districts or purple/red states.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:53 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


To let people know bigotry is not easily forgiven. The Republicans are going to start evolving on this too soon, and I hope we don't let them forget what they did.

Yeah, that's tough. Especially since I remember a few comments FPP's ago that was asking us to be more understanding of whites supporting or overlooking Donald Trump's racism. Yes, they're also supporting him due to economic reasons and the Republican Party failing them, but there are a lot of people who don't support him and are in the exact same situation.
posted by FJT at 1:55 PM on March 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


prior to the campaign, does bernie have a record on hiv/aids, except for the one time a few years ago he tried to slash drug prices (which seems more in line with his healthcare work than with hiv/aids advocacy)? did he have anything to say during the ACTUP days?
posted by nadawi at 2:04 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


I wish that people would stop trying to conflate Hillary and Bill's record like she's some sort of damned puppet. Do you agree with your spouse on every issue? I sure as hell don't.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that part of the argument for Clinton's candidacy is her experience as First Lady, which IMO makes her husband's policy positions relevant, we have ample evidence of her support for some of his crappier policies as well. We know she supported welfare reform because she wrote about helping to round up votes for it in her autobiography. The "super predators" comment that she's received recent criticism for came from her endorsement of the crime bill. Those are the two biggest reasons I voted third party against Bill Clinton in '96, by the way… my mom was on AFDC and the welfare reform bill fucked her over, and even at the time most of the crime bill seemed like an awful idea.

I mean, whatever, I'm about 90% sure I'll vote for Clinton in the fall anyway (or just leave that line on the ballot blank at worst), but she's on the record as supporting policies that have had negative effects on my family and friends.
posted by donatella at 2:05 PM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


This reminds me of the Terminator (warning: violence)
posted by My Dad at 2:06 PM on March 16, 2016




i think it's totally valid to bring up, positive negative or otherwise, anything that hillary did as first lady - things she publicly supported, things she personally worked on, things she gave speeches or wrote letters about - and i think it's ridiculous to give her credit or condemnation for bill's whole presidency (or governorship). i've seen people go so far as to blame her for monica lewinsky which really takes the stretching it to the bounds of ridiculousness cake.
posted by nadawi at 2:09 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


The way that either candidate can make any progress at all with policy as President is by encouraging voter participation in downticket races, and getting them to the midterms. I feel like Bernie, with a grassroots campaign and fiery style and general ability to inspire the young, is more likely to actually do that than Hillary is.

Although I hope, even with Hillary in office, that Bernie's campaign volunteers and biggest supporters form the core of a continuing grassroots effort in 2018.
posted by Foosnark at 2:10 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


i've seen people go so far as to blame her for monica lewinsky which really takes the stretching it to the bounds of ridiculousness cake.

To judge her for what, in relation to Lewinsky? Obviously Hillary did not cause Bill to cheat. But I think it's okay for people to take into consideration that she stayed/stays with him. That's her own business, but goes to her judgment as a person. And it's perfectly okay to say that it raises a red flag for someone, I think.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:15 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


The way that either candidate can make any progress at all with policy as President is by encouraging voter participation in downticket races, and getting them to the midterms. I feel like Bernie, with a grassroots campaign and fiery style and general ability to inspire the young, is more likely to actually do that than Hillary is.

Genuine question, because I don't know his history on this--bur does Bernie have any significant history of stumping for other downticket candidates?
posted by bepe at 2:17 PM on March 16, 2016


What? I'm sorry, but what? She's not a good enough candidate because she stayed with her husband despite his philandering?
posted by angrycat at 2:19 PM on March 16, 2016 [17 favorites]


Tons of comments have complained about Clinton's record on gay marriage. For the most part, Sanders' similar record isn't mentioned.

What, that he voted against DOMA, supported GLBT and specifically trans people as mayor of Burlington to the point that it was seen as a sort of safe haven in the community, fully supported civil partnership legislation but was reticent to reopen the fight over marriage immediately thereafter following a rightward shift in the VT legislature (exactly the kind of pragmatism people straw-man him about not having)? I would love to see any evidence that he's done or said anything approaching Clinton's harmful "I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman" rhetoric. Hell, even Bill said she was 'uncomfortable with gay people acting out' as recently as her Senate run (he also states that he thought DOMA was right at the time, not some chess-playing power move). I think there's a real false equivalency constructed about their records on gay rights. Sanders has been miles ahead of her on support for gay people for decades.
posted by dialetheia at 2:19 PM on March 16, 2016 [18 favorites]


But I think it's okay for people to take into consideration that she stayed/stays with him.

i vehemently disagree.
posted by nadawi at 2:20 PM on March 16, 2016 [18 favorites]


i vehemently disagree.

Um, okay?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:23 PM on March 16, 2016


Obviously Hillary did not cause Bill to cheat.

Not if you ask her presumptive opponent.
posted by theodolite at 2:23 PM on March 16, 2016


I think there's a real false equivalency constructed about their records on gay rights. Sanders has been miles ahead of her on support for gay people for decades.
But his record on gay marriage is more complicated than he now makes it sound. While Sanders generally opposed measures to ban gay marriage, he did not speak out in favor of it until 2009. That’s still ahead of Clinton, who released a YouTube video announcing her support in 2013, as well as most other Democratic Senators, but not as early as he’s now casting it.

In addition, his reasoning for opposing efforts to restrict gay marriage was much narrower and legalistic than he now makes it seem.
How Bernie Sanders Evolved on Gay Marriage
posted by nadawi at 2:24 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


is this like No True Woman stays with a cheater? I mean, really, what is this. Have you examined Jill Stein's romantic past and made sure that no man cheated on her/she packed her bags the moment she did?

and this is a really good example of HRC supporters being all cut it out with this nonsense and having a fucking good point.
posted by angrycat at 2:27 PM on March 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


In addition, his reasoning for opposing efforts to restrict gay marriage was much narrower and legalistic than he now makes it seem.

I am not convinced by this at all. Gay marriage is a civil liberties issue. And even that article makes it clear that it's a false equivalency - even reading everything he said in the worst possible light, at least he didn't speak out against gay marriage the way Clinton shamefully did in her Senate run. His previous record of being extremely gay-friendly as mayor, not addressed in that piece, is important too. I don't think their records are even close to equivalent, sorry.
posted by dialetheia at 2:29 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


ok, i don't think his record is as strong as you're making it out to be. i think they both fumbled in different ways and it doesn't make much sense for either side to attack the other over it (especially considering where each candidate is now and where their would be challengers are).
posted by nadawi at 2:33 PM on March 16, 2016


I wish I didn't have to consider the fact that, no matter who wins, there will be an alleged rapist living in the White House. No woman is at fault for this fact. And, as much as I wish that society immediately banished alleged rapists from the public sphere and that women could freely leave their philandering, sexually harassing, and/or raping husbands without ramifications, that's not really the world that we live in.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:34 PM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


guys i'm pretty sure there are more pertinent fights to be had besides gay marriage and lewinskygate
posted by Apocryphon at 2:35 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


But the gay marriage record is kind of obviated by subsequent events. We should be discussing the best policies, not the best Democratic candidate. We already have selected the Democratic candidate.
posted by OmieWise at 2:36 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


i am all about holding bill clinton responsible for what he's done. i would never argue against that.
posted by nadawi at 2:37 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


We already have selected the Democratic candidate.

Much of the country has not voted yet. Delegate math makes it essentially a done deal, but that is not the same as saying "we" selected the Democratic candidate.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:38 PM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sure it does. It's clear I mean "we" the country. I've already addressed why the structure of primaries etc is unfair. FWIW, I haven't gotten to vote yet either.
posted by OmieWise at 2:41 PM on March 16, 2016


> We already have selected the Democratic candidate.

If I were a young Sanders supporter, people writing off my choice before we're even half way through the primaries is exactly the kind of thing that would make me think "Fuck the Democratic Party. I'm just going to sit this one out/vote third party". I wish people would stop talking as if it's already Hillary's nomination; I think they're making it less likely she could win in November.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:42 PM on March 16, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'll be voting Hillary in the general, but it does bug me to see him out there on her feminist campaign trail.

Scuttlebutt around the Beltway is that if Hillary wins on November 8th, she will immediately begin divorce proceedings against Bill, meaning he will never make it back to the White House, regardless.

OK, I just made that up. But wouldn't it be the sweetest, dish-served-cold revenge imaginable? We'd have to change her nickname to Furiosa after that.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:44 PM on March 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


upporter, people writing off my choice before we're even half way through the primaries is exactly the kind of thing that would make me think "Fuck the Democratic Party. I'm just going to sit this one out/vote third party". I wish people would stop talking as if it's already Hillary's nomination; I think they're making it less likely she could win in November.

It is already Clinton's nomination. Sanders chose to run in the Democratic Party. I'm not trying to be snarky, but it sounds like you are advocating lying to young Sanders supporters, and I don't understand how that builds a progressive movement with any real chance of affecting change. If you aren't at the table because you don't think it's important to be there, you aren't gonna have the chance to help set policy.
posted by OmieWise at 2:52 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I do think that, while accepting the mathematical reality at this point is important, Sanders has excited a broad group of young people about politics in a way we haven't seen since 2008 (maybe even more so at this stage in the election), and it's really important as a party that we don't blow it.
posted by zachlipton at 2:56 PM on March 16, 2016


Just to be clear, again, the way the primaries are run and the delegates awarded are structural issues that create the result we see here. It's unfair, I agree, but not because Clinton or any of her supporters are big old meanies.

Remember when Bush II lost the popular vote and still became President? I do, and it's one of the most important political lessons I ever learned.

Remember when my vote as a DC resident has ever "counted" in the primaries or the general? Yeah, me neither.
posted by OmieWise at 3:00 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Pretending the cracked egg can still be a chicken someday seems really condescending to those young voters to me.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:03 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's not about being fair or being mean. It's about presenting at least the appearance of caring about peoples votes, and not just getting enough votes to win. Disenfranchisement, whether through voter ID or felony conviction or the electoral college or delegate math, is a huge issue in recent years. Everyone deserves a chance to vote and to have that vote matter, even if the overall result stays the same.

And how does the Democratic Party court progressive voters if you tell the most progressive states in the country that their votes don't matter?
posted by melissasaurus at 3:05 PM on March 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump Voters’ Aversion To Foreign-Sounding Names Cost Him Delegates.

Also Illinois: you have a wackadoodle delegate assignment scheme.
posted by zachlipton at 3:14 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Tons of comments have complained about Clinton's record on gay marriage. For the most part, Sanders' similar record isn't mentioned.

Compared with Sanders, Clinton's record on gay rights is garbage. And people who keep trying to equate the two candidates on that are either ignorant or dishonest. We deserve better.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:17 PM on March 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


Local elections are like dinner with your super-BFF where if you want to try that Cubano-Korean Burrito truck you heard about on Periscope they're totally down

Presidential elections are like your SO's grandparents are in town and you can take them out to Olive Garden or Red Lobster and that's it, really

Kids: get hype about local elections! You can get weird with those!
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:25 PM on March 16, 2016 [27 favorites]


melissasaurus, I think we disagree pretty fundamentally here about how to achieve your stated aim. The response to the structural problems I'm talking about, from my perspective, is to fix the problems. I think we should make clear that everyone's opinion is important, but I honestly feel that it's counterproductive, and perhaps a bit codescending to pretend that votes that do not have power do have power. Votes aren't magic, and they aren't Speech Acts, they are part of a legally defined rules-bound process. The road ahead for progressives is to change rules, make rules, and get into representative government. That isn't necessarily tied to the Democratic Party. I'm not a Democrat, I'm a least damage to the most people by whatever means.

Let me also say that I respect your comments here, and say the next in only the most constructive sense: I don't think it is at all respectful or progressive to compare voters whose vote is deprecated by the primary calendar with those whose vote has been taken away because they are truly disenfranchised. I assume you didn't mean it that way, but I can see no equivalence at all between someone who is prevented from voting because they were a felon, or required by racist policy to present an id, and someone, like me, whose vote does not count because of the scheduling of my primaries and the depth of left voting trends in my state.
posted by OmieWise at 3:28 PM on March 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump's best foreign policy advisor is...Trump:
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, who has long shied away from naming any foreign policy advisors, suggested Wednesday that he was his own top consultant on the issue.

"I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things," Trump said during a telephone interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"I know what I'm doing, and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people, and at the appropriate time I'll tell you who the people are," Trump said.

"But I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have a good instinct for this stuff,” he added.
Oh FFS
posted by zakur at 4:02 PM on March 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


It wasn't meant in that sense, but I understand where you're coming from and thanks for calling me out on it. What I mean is that Democrats, particularly in the current political climate (in which disenfranchisement is a major issue), should not be the party that says, to anyone for any reason, that their vote doesn't matter. The Democratic party should be about bringing people into the political process and advocating for democracy - not about stifling turnout. The nomination doesn't happen until the convention and, while we can be realistic about the delegate math, I think that the party gains a lot by respecting the process and letting it play out.

Votes aren't magic, and they aren't Speech Acts, they are part of a legally defined rules-bound process.

I completely disagree. My vote is my voice. Because of the electoral college, who I vote for in the general will not affect the outcome of the election. But my right to cast that vote and to demand that politicians earn my vote is fundamental to democracy. I mean, why don't we just have Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Pennsylvania vote for president and the rest of us can stay home?

I can conceptualize where you're coming from I just believe very strongly in a different view.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:05 PM on March 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


1619th!
posted by y2karl at 4:20 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


people writing off my choice before we're even half way through the primaries is exactly the kind of thing that would make me think "Fuck

Kind of like being told that Clinton has no constituency other than Wall Street, and only crypto-Republicans support her. Really pisses ya off to have your support and political views dismissed like that, right?

And if THAT pisses you off, imagine being told that an entire race should be patronized because they don't know well enough to vote their REAL interests. Why, that may make you inclined to say "screw this shit" about a candidate and his supporters.
posted by happyroach at 4:21 PM on March 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


"I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things,"

This is easier to take if you imagine that he's talking with Jean-Luc Picard.
posted by Gorgik at 4:22 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


They both fucked up. That's not a ringing endorsement for either of them.

No fuckups allowed? That's setting the bar pretty high. Consider these quotes by W.E.B. DuBois on Abraham Lincoln:
...at the crisis he was big enough to be inconsistent--cruel, merciful; peace-loving, a fighter; despising Negroes and letting them fight and vote; protecting slavery and freeing slaves. He was a man--a big, inconsistent, brave man.

...And I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed.
Clinton and Sanders--while not Lincoln by any means--are people, and people fuck up. Either one is a much better person than Trump and would make a much better president.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:37 PM on March 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


And if THAT pisses you off, imagine being told that an entire race should be patronized because they don't know well enough to vote their REAL interests.

People say they kind of thing all the time. Do you think Trump voters are acting in their own best interest?
posted by Drinky Die at 4:50 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's patronizing when we say it about them, too.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:59 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


*shrug* It's an election. One side says it's better to vote for their candidate, the other side says the opposite.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:03 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


PA general polling:
Clinton leads Trump 43 percent to 35 percent in Pennsylvania, a state that has not supported a Republican for president since 1988. She leads Cruz 45 percent to 42 percent.

Sanders leads Trump 49 percent to 37 percent and Cruz 48 percent to 40 percent.

That's the good news for the Democrats. The bad news is, Clinton and Sanders are trailing the other two Republican presidential candidates, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, the poll shows.

Rubio leads Clinton 47 percent to 39 percent and Sanders 46 percent to 41 percent in the poll. Kasich leads Clinton 49 percent to 36 percent and Sanders 46 percent to 42 percent.
Kasich could be a serious threat if he can really win PA.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:14 PM on March 16, 2016


So could the reanimated corpse of Ronald Reagan; happily, neither have any shot at the nod. (And if by some miracle John Kasich did maneuver himself through a contested convention, the Trumpists and possibly a few Cruzites would bolt.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:21 PM on March 16, 2016


Nah, Zombie Reagan is too liberal.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:22 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


"It's Morning in America Again II: The Resurrection of the Dead"
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:32 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]




Noticeably absent from the Reich FB post (!) is any indication that "alive" means "viable for the nomination."
posted by OmieWise at 5:49 PM on March 16, 2016


He's absolutely right, but note that none of #3-#7 actually have anything to do with her having a chance at the actual nomination, only why it is of benefit for Sanders to keep running either way. Which is something I agree with.
posted by Justinian at 5:49 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


PA won't vote Republican this year. Yeah there are a ton of conservative people in PA but let's be honest Philly and Pittsburgh are too stronk.

Republicans have been trying to crack the blue wall for over a generation and they can't do it. Why does anyone think that Trumpzilla will suddenly make the Blue Wall assailable? Sure they can spend money like crazy but really all it does it make station owners in PA media markets incredibly rich.

Republicans are pretty much fucked by the EC math currently as they increasingly are dependent on winning states that are less and less favorable to their brand. Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Ohio, etc all have to be be swept by the Republicans because states like NM have turned from being purple to being reliably blue.
posted by vuron at 5:56 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


roomthreeseventeen, thanks for linking that -- I happened to just see that clip of the "three generation family for Trump" while catching up on my daily News Hour intake, and kept thinking "Am I seeing what I THINK I'm seeing on her hands?!"
posted by mostly vowels at 6:04 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yah, the comment about the thing on her hands is about white supremacist tattoos, not tattoos in general.
posted by zippy at 7:00 PM on March 16, 2016


filthy light thief: NPR had some interesting coverage this morning, including an interview with John Mac Stipanovich, a Conservative pollster in Florida

And it's now up as a transcript:
INSKEEP: Well, let's talk about that for a moment. What do you say to people like the Trump voter we just heard from a moment ago who says look, you may disagree with Trump - in fact, his statements may be outrageous - but he's saying what a lot of people are thinking?

STIPANOVICH: Well, they - you know, the question he was asked was about racism, bigotry, things like that. He said well, that's what a lot of people think. If people are thinking about that, they're wrong. Just because you think something and you're a citizen of the United States doesn't make you right or that you deserve to have someone who reflects your views in the White House. You're just wrong. That's what you are. And I think it will all sort out. I mean, it's like the lady on the program said earlier, we're not going to round up 12 million people, transport them, house them, feed them and deport them. You know, there'd be concentration camps around regional airports and trains rolling in every day unloading weeping women and children. It's not going to happen. Anybody who believes it is a damn fool.
Emphasis mine. Seriously, I'd love it if more people had the nerve to say "So what if people are happy that Trump are saying what they're thinking, it's still racist and wrong."
posted by filthy light thief at 7:06 PM on March 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


Try to limit the snarkiness guys, I mean yes this is Metafilter and we run on pure unadulterated snarkiness but seriously there is really no problem in letting people grieve over what might've been.

Maybe we should extend some compassion to each other and save the football spiking and sour grapes for later at least for the sake of the moderators so that they don't have to police a never ending spiral of suck.
posted by vuron at 7:31 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I feel optimistic about how a Hillary nomination would affect national discourse. Women are already calling out Joe Scarborough for telling Hillary to smile. It's happening and it's just going to keep happening, all the things women have been fighting against for years are going to hit national discourse in an unprecedented way. Hillary's shoutiness and refusal to conform to a narrative will just push things further. And like I've said before, I believe in the women of this country, and we will not allow a President Trump.

I think it will be a slog, and it will be brutal and harsh, but nothing worthwhile has been achieved without a fight.
posted by zutalors! at 7:58 PM on March 16, 2016 [16 favorites]


Random observations:

--My personal take on Trump and his campaign is summarized in this crude way: The guy has a serious case of body odor. When folks point this out, he cuts a bunch of farts to mask the b.o.

--The following has happened to me and I suspect to pretty much every politically active person who isn't a complete lackey: You go to the folks who control a chunk of your party machinery and suggest what you think is a good idea, or tactic, or initiative. And the response you get is "Well, we're not going to talk about that right now." It hurts a little to have your idea dismissed so casually. But it happens. How one responds is important. You can take your lumps and still believe in the process or you can walk away. I'm going to urge Sanders supporters (and I'm a pretty vocal one myself) that they take the lump and work the process. Heed what A&C (and Omiewise?) have suggested: you can complain and do nothing or complain and do the work.

--How does change happen? For better or worse, this is, and will remain to be, a two party system. Third parties are mostly symbolic. And mostly impotent. Even during the great period of American populism when third parties had some small measures of success, eventually what happens is that one or the other of the major parties co-opts the agenda. It's my belief that the time is now to begin to force the Democratic party to co-opt many of the planks that Sanders represents, especially when it comes to economic policy. It won't be easy and it won't happen overnight even if folks are in the trenches pushing for them. But it can happen by working from within. It cannot happen if folks disengage. It's also my belief that it must happen, because...

...the economy will be blowing out again and sooner than folks think. Whoever is the next Prez will have to deal with it. The establishment rolled over during the last blowout; it's vital to keep that from happening again.

And the best way to prevent a complete capitulation during the next crisis is to do two things: be in a position to pressure corporativist Democrats to do the right things, and to deny the Republican party from having the upper hand in shaping whatever policies will be necessary to keep this nation from going full-blown fascist.

--The Sanders campaign is a pump-primer and as such is doing essential work for future prospects of sane (economic) policy. As a battering ram on economic policy, this campaign has done much better than I anticipated. The wall protecting Wall Street's (really FIRE economics) dominance of policy-shaping is weaker now than it has been for three decades. It would be a shame if a significant segment of Sanders supporters gave up the ghost just when they will be needed most.

Defeat Trumpublicans. Support the Democratic party, including those whom we might have temporary disagreements with. Transform the Democratic party. Your grandchildren will thank you.
posted by CincyBlues at 7:59 PM on March 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


Globally she was key to:
negotiating a ceasefire between Isarael and Hamas


I thought you were trying to enumerate her good points. She fucked up right out of the gate. You do not give terrorist criminals legitimacy on the world stage by recognizing them as legitimate sovereign entities.

Now, if she had gotten the Israeli government to pay more than lip-service to the democratic principles of due process of law and equal protection of the laws, that would be noteworthy.
posted by mikelieman at 8:08 PM on March 16, 2016


If you aren't at the table because you don't think it's important to be there, you aren't gonna have the chance to help set policy.

With a seat at Hillary Clinton's table costing $50,000, then I'm not going to have a chance to help set policy, either.

Or enjoy an hour long speech worth a quarter of a million dollars.

Those must be some speeches...
posted by mikelieman at 8:12 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Here's a really moving video of a woman with ALS meeting with Hillary.
posted by zutalors! at 8:25 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't think anyone denies that Hamas is a dangerous organization but for better or worse they've been elected to represent Palestinians in the Gaza Strip largely because Fatah has been seen as unsuccessful in getting Israel to agree to a two-state solution. However it is important to note that while the Obama administration has engaged in diplomacy with Hamas it has not been recognized as a legitimate national government. I think it's important to engage in diplomacy with any elected government whether we like their policies or not because diplomacy is generally better than bloodshed. However that diplomacy can and should take part without formal recognition of Hamas.

I'm curious because it seems like Hillary is routinely pilloried on the left for being a warhawk but in this case an attempt to de-escalate tensions between Israel and Hamas is seen a negative.
posted by vuron at 8:27 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I wish we could have some kind of a "quiet corner" for not slinging mud around. It's pretty exhausting when it feels like you're expected to respond to, or apologize for, someone else's nasty quip before the conversation can move forward. There's only so many times you can qualify your statements by saying "I don't think this means Hilary is a bad person," or have to guess if by "Sanders supporters are the worst" someone is referring to you, too.
posted by teponaztli at 8:29 PM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


You can just ignore it, I'm planning to ignore it and post my optimism about Hillary being a great candidate in the general. I've spent a bunch of time thinking about it and she is my choice.
posted by zutalors! at 8:31 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


The primary isn't over yet. I still haven't voted.
posted by teponaztli at 8:35 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


was that to me? I didn't say anything about the primary being over.
posted by zutalors! at 8:38 PM on March 16, 2016


The US has negotiated with the Taliban even. Just because someone is evil doesn't mean you can't occasionally make a beneficial deal with them.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:40 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sorry, that's projection on my part. I just feel like everyone is really ready to act as if Sanders is in the past, when he's still running and some of us aren't quite ready to pivot to the general election just yet.
posted by teponaztli at 8:42 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Right but I wasn't talking about you, or some of you, I was just talking about myself. I mean you asked about a quiet corner and then called out my comment because I didn't include Sanders in it.
posted by zutalors! at 8:45 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


I must have miscommunicated. I wasn't calling anything out. I apologized and said I was projecting, and that I'm a little sensitive to people moving on to the general election.
posted by teponaztli at 8:54 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


I must have miscommunicated. I wasn't calling anything out. I apologized and said I was projecting, and that I'm a little sensitive to people moving on to the general election.

That's cool, thank you.
posted by zutalors! at 8:56 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mod note: I know it's theoretically topical, but we are not opening a discussion of Israel/Palestine in an election thread right now, sorry.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:16 PM on March 16, 2016 [17 favorites]


Not sure if I actually read this or if I am having some kind of weird stroke or something, because my god, this can't be reality can it?
posted by Artw at 9:39 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


[I know it's theoretically topical, but we are not opening a discussion of Israel/Palestine in an election thread right now, sorry. ]

Only, what, eight or nine more months of this! Hang in there, mods!
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:41 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'll just dump this container of nuclear waste and botulism into a live volcano and turn the tornado machine on it, okay folks?
posted by Artw at 9:42 PM on March 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Not sure if I actually read this or if I am having some kind of weird stroke or something, because my god, this can't be reality can it?

I feel like half these headlines were created by bots months ago, and every few months some journalist is like hey it fits! and writes up a corresponding article.
posted by zutalors! at 9:49 PM on March 16, 2016


I don't know, Trump seemed rather smart and devious and evil to me, and I thought every weird thing he said was carefully planned. But with this...
"I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I said a lot of things"
...Trump has gone Full Palin. Maybe he's just been an idiot all this time, not a mastermind.

Seriously, though, aside from the crazy and the stupid, this may be Trump's biggest failing as a potential leader: he's not a team player. He's too much of a narcissist to let anyone be part of his team. Even supposed "endorsers" like Christie and Carson end up looking like lackeys. Instead of "Trump added X to his team" we get jokes about them being puppets or prisoners.

With this attitude who can he pick for VP? Anyone who could possibly upstage Trump or look smarter than him is out. Even if he picked Sarah Palin... I think she'd steal the spotlight. It's going to have to be a wet fish like Chris Christie who will just stand behind Trump looking like he's having stomach cramps and never speak. And that won't help Trump win.
posted by mmoncur at 10:19 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Only, what, eight or nine more months of this! Hang in there, mods!

I think the general will be much easier on the mods than the primary has been. And barring something rather unforeseen happening (not out of the question, given the utter WTF of this cycle so far), the quadrennial Mustering of the Leftist Circular Firing Squad is probably gonna wrap up soon.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:20 PM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump: "I'm consulting the best people"
Q: And who are the best?
Trump: Me. Me, me, me, me, me! I'm the best!

I can't bring myself to watch it again, but didja notice when Trump resumed his rally speech after that guy climbed onstage, his first words as he tried to regain his composure (I use the term lightly) were "I have done great thi-". Then he stopped mid-word and corrected course to the standard "Folks, we're gonna make America great ..." that brings the applause.
posted by valetta at 10:20 PM on March 16, 2016


[I know it's theoretically topical, but we are not opening a discussion of Israel/Palestine in an election thread right now, sorry. ]

"That's like a shark with a grenade launcher!"
posted by indubitable at 11:00 PM on March 16, 2016


> Jason Leopold, the reporter who initially sued for access to Clinton's public record emails: Why You Actually Should Care About Hillary Clinton's Damn Emails

Hillary must hate Leopold and the FOIA as much as Obama does by now.
posted by homunculus at 11:22 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump: "I'm consulting the best people"
Q: And who are the best?
Trump: Me. Me, me, me, me, me! I'm the best!


Not the Me's!
posted by homunculus at 11:24 PM on March 16, 2016


Trump is going to choose one of his sons to be VP so the campaign can continue to stay on brand.
posted by RakDaddy at 11:30 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Bush is capable of fooling you into voting for a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people you probably shouldn't be President.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who talk like this were in a coma or possibly in middle school back in 2003. The Bush administration and the Blair government both literally fabricated intelligence claiming that Iraq posed an imminent threat of using WMDs. Congresspeople, unlike the rest of us, were privy to the full Monty of classified intelligence briefings with lots of claims and lots of supporting "evidence." Colin Powell, who was widely seen at the time as being moderate and not particularly gung-ho about going to war lent his credibility to the lies. Moreover, we were about 2 years out from 9/11. The country was largely still in the grips of the constant drumbeat of fear, also manufactured by Bush. The previous war in Iraq was prosecuted fairly quickly and fairly bloodlessly in terms of coalition lives. Without a crystal ball, it was impossible to know how negligent Bush would be in the aftermath of the invasion, leaving huge stockpiles of high explosives unguarded for anyone to take. As noted earlier, the AUMF specifically required negotiation first, invasion second. Without the crystal ball, it was impossible to know that Bush would completely disregard the part about negotiation, to the point of ignoring Hussein's acquiescence to invasive weapons inspections and kicking out the fucking inspectors. We had not yet seen quite how little regard Bush had for keeping his word.

In that context, it is not nearly as ridiculous to vote for a resolution giving the President's purported negotiations teeth that specifically stated invasion was to be the last resort. Hindsight is great, but we didn't have it then. Berating Hillary for being duped is some serious victim-blaming. It is true she is by no means a pacifist, but it is also not true that she voted to go to war.

The revisionist history on this really infuriates me, especially because it takes the blame off the liars and fabricators by claiming that everybody just should have known it was a frame job and they were idiots for not knowing before some of the perps confessed or there was any real evidence of the fabrication. Blame the perp, not the victims. (Yes, the Iraqi people were far more victimized and far more directly, but that doesn't change the fact that the con men..and woman.. also victimized Congress, the governments of a score of countries, and the people of the world generally)
posted by wierdo at 11:52 PM on March 16, 2016 [21 favorites]


Sometimes I wonder if the people who talk like this were in a coma or possibly in middle school back in 2003.

I say this as a Clinton supporter: on the left side--at least from within the bubble I was in--there was little doubt Bush was inventing the evidence from the very beginning. There was a lot of discussion about how pathetic it was to watch someone like Colin Powell have to get up and defend that nonsense. I remember the strength and purity of that conviction and how baffled I was that people were going along with those lies.

It is difficult even now for me to believe anyone could've believed them. But at that time period I was very politically segregated and never really talked with anyone who wasn't from circles that held to those particular beliefs. That's my own blind spot, and I have to account for that.

The point is that I think many of the people who talk like that were always of the belief that it was an obvious lie, and so their analysis of politicians' choices start from the assumption that the politician knew it was all bunk, too.
posted by Anonymous at 12:17 AM on March 17, 2016


I cannot let this slide. This so-called revisionist history that you speak of - is not revisionist history. There were many credible professional people who said that the evidence for the war was fabricated. Do you remember Valerie Plame?
If the evidence was so convincing why did:
Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
and 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives.
And
Akaka, Daniel (D-HI)
Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Byrd, Robert (D-WV)
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
Corzine, Jon (D-NJ)
Dayton, Mark (D-MN)
Durbin, Dick (D-IL)
Feingold, Russ (D-WI)
Graham, Bob (D-FL)
Inouye, Daniel (D-HI)
Kennedy, Edward (D-MA)
Leahy, Patrick (D-VT)
Levin, Carl (D-MI)
Mikulski, Barbara (D-MD)
Murray, Patty (D-WA)
Reed, Jack (D-RI)
Sarbanes, Paul (D-MD)
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
Wellstone, Paul (D-F-L-MN) - May you rest in peace
Wyden, Ron (D-OR)

Vote against it?
But Hillary voted for it any way. Even after being confronted by Code Pink.
and presented with an alternate view. She knew what she was doing. Hillary Clinton chose war. It was wrong and I do not think I will ever forgive those who voted for and or promoted that disastrous war as long as I live.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:23 AM on March 17, 2016 [35 favorites]


There were many credible professional people who said that the evidence for the war was fabricated. Do you remember Valerie Plame?

I agree, and I imagine many on Metafilter agree. But if I'm going to be honest with myself, at the time most of my news was coming from sites like DailyKos. I was in an echo chamber. An echo chamber that was correct--but nevertheless, I wonder what the situation looked like to people outside it? I honestly don't know.
posted by Anonymous at 1:50 AM on March 17, 2016




Here's what the situation looked like to the UN Security Council in November 2002. 11 of its 15 members refused to support a last-ditch US/UK resolution authorising the invasion of Iraq. Because the evidence for authorisation was inconclusive.

Everyone knew this, all over the world, it was in the papers, on the TV and online. Echo chamber? Bubble? Please. Everyone knew.
posted by valetta at 2:53 AM on March 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


Sometimes I wonder if the people who talk like this were in a coma or possibly in middle school back in 2003.

Nope. Fully aware adult at the time. And what everybody else just said.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:03 AM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


I just have to defend the intel community on this one. For the most part, there wasn't a lot of fabricated evidence. What there was is a failure of communication between people asking "Is it possible that Iraq has WMDs" who meant to them "Does Iraq have the capability of fucking up the US/have nukes?" but were SAYING "Does Iraq have shit that can kill a lot of people fast?" Yeah, no shit, brah, we gave it to him. It was still there because we gave it to him. We found WMDs because we gave them to him. They just weren't what everyone else was thinking of when they meant WMDs. Operation Avarice has recently been declassified and can be discussed. Iraq had WMDs, full stop. Shitty WMDs! WMDs not worth going to war for! But for real WMDs.
posted by corb at 3:54 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was in an echo chamber. An echo chamber that was correct--but nevertheless, I wonder what the situation looked like to people outside it?

I hear what you're saying, but I think this might be a little too relativist for my taste. There was a definite pro-war climate at the time, but there was also a very vocal anti-war contingent that wasn't just opposing it on principle, but arguing that it would be a disaster. They were right. People like Krugman now talk about how we were lied into war, but the fact is that even in that climate some people still didn't bite. It's one thing to talk about public support for the war, but it's not unreasonable to hold legislators to a higher standard.

For at least the past decade, a lot of left-wing commentators (Glenn Greenwald comes to mind) have specifically said that a politician's support for the Iraq war should cast doubt on their trustworthiness. This was even a major part of the 2004 primary: Dean had opposed the war, while Kerry had not, and Kerry faced a lot of criticism for that (especially considering his early work opposing the Vietnam war). Both Obama and Biden made a big deal about their vocal opposition to the war in their 2008 primary campaigns, as well.

Whether or not you (the general you) think this criticism is reasonable, it's certainly not new, and I find it weird that it might be called revisionist history. I'm not saying the only right thing to do is forever condemn any politician who voted in favor of the war (and that's regardless of my own feelings on this), but it's not totally unfounded that some people would still consider this vote a major marker of a politician's hawkish/dovish leanings.
posted by teponaztli at 4:09 AM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


I just feel like everyone is really ready to act as if Sanders is in the past, when he's still running and some of us aren't quite ready to pivot to the general election just yet.

The Sanders campaign is not giving up and should not give up. I'm a strong Sanders supporter and will be casting my ballot for him in May--even if the odds look worse then. My previous post was simply to suggest that folks need to adopt a longer-term approach that extends well past this election cycle, win or lose. I also think it necessary that both camps in this campaign get used to the idea of working together despite all the pummeling going on right now. And by working together I do not mean submission or abandoning the goals of the Sanders campaign. Clinton needs the votes of Sanders supporters to win the general and she should be forced into making some concessions for that support. That's how politics works.

Here's a piece published this morning that is a little more militant: Bernie Soldiers On. I agree with most of it, except that I think it more wise, and better for the long term, that any forward motion that serves to consolidate the folks who have very different ideas about policy than the Clinton campaign, be done under the umbrella of the Democratic party. The important thing here is that this not become another wasted moment in recent leftist/progressive history that fails because of silly ideological purity tests.

To mangle a little Marx: the point is not to feel superior, but impotent, by dint of political purity; the point is to make this a better world.

Messier, harder work, but again, your grandkids will thank you.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:13 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Donald Trump winning the US presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The EIU ranking uses a scale of one to 25, with Mr Trump garnering a rating of 12, the same level of risk as "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy".
posted by infini at 4:18 AM on March 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


Of course Trump is a risk, he is basically Charlie from Always Sunny in Philadelphia. He is willing to cut the brake lines to the van as he and everyone else is on board.

Wild Card Bitches!
posted by vuron at 4:47 AM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


OkCupid: Make America Date Again.
Ashley Madison: Make America Mate Again.
Tinder: Make America Rate Again.
posted by Wordshore at 4:53 AM on March 17, 2016


America: Make MetaFilter Beanplate Again.
posted by valetta at 5:03 AM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


People were marching in the streets. The loopy left.
posted by Trochanter at 5:05 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I cannot let this slide. This so-called revisionist history that you speak of - is not revisionist history. There were many credible professional people who said that the evidence for the war was fabricated. Do you remember Valerie Plame?
If the evidence was so convincing why did:
I, too, was an adult and there at the time, and my memory was that only very paranoid people thought that the evidence was fabricated. Many people opposed the war because they thought that Iraq probably had WMDs but that invading was not the right way to deal with it. I marched against the war, but I would have told you that it didn't matter whether there were WMDs, because the US couldn't invade every country that got weapons they weren't supposed to have. Instead, we needed a coherent international response to weapons proliferation.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:14 AM on March 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


She knew what she was doing. Hillary Clinton chose war. It was wrong and I do not think I will ever forgive those who voted for and or promoted that disastrous war as long as I live.

Move Hillary and Kerry and the other trimmers into the No column and the war still goes on.

The GOP had the votes to pass the AUMF, even over a Senate filibuster. They framed it such that a No vote was a No on Bush's anti-terrorism policy.

A No vote for the centrists caught in the middle was purely a moral stand against giving Bush war powers. Said vote would not have actually prevented Bush from going to war, just lowered the vote in the Senate down from the 77 YEAs to something in the high 60s.

And a Yea at least covered their political asses if a legitimate casus belli was found, or if the occupation hadn't turn to shit as it did.

You may object to this calculus, but here in 2016 clearly not enough of your fellow non-Republican-voting cohorts do to put another alternative into the Democratic nomination for President.

And our electoral system is structured to vend us the candidate from one of these two parties in November.

And the stupid thing is the Nader purists of November 2000 were the ones* that made the whole Bush getting the AUMF possible in the first place.

Purity has its costs, too.

*other populations in NH and FL who did not vote for Gore in 2000 share responsibility here, but it takes a special layer of stupid for an anti-war person in NH and FL to cast an empty protest/purity vote that could have been cast to prevent the neocons from taking the Presidency.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 5:15 AM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Wikileaks has released a searchable database of Hillary Clinton's private server emails.

Hillary Clinton Email Archive
On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.
posted by valetta at 5:24 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I, too, was an adult and there at the time, and my memory was that only very paranoid people thought that the evidence was fabricated.

Woah, that's a sharp turn. I remember it very differently. Yeah, a lot of people did think it would be a disaster, but there was also serious doubt cast on the reliability of the evidence - the tubes, the stories about yellowcake, the pictures of "biowarfare" trucks. I specifically remember marching because it wasn't just a bad idea, but a bad idea based on really flimsy evidence. I even remember specific conversations with people about how we thought Colin Powell was lying. It's a little harsh to say only paranoid people thought this way.
posted by teponaztli at 5:26 AM on March 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


Honestly, describing someone's views as having been limited to "very paranoid people" is totally alienating and divisive. The fact that we were right should undermine claims that our views were paranoid, unless the idea is that we just happened to stumble across the truth in spite of ourselves. This feels like 2002 all over again.
posted by teponaztli at 5:32 AM on March 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


Purity has its costs, too.

It's pretty heartbreaking that THAT'S the lesson we learned.
posted by Trochanter at 5:37 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's a little harsh to say only paranoid people thought this way.

It's not just harsh; I'd say it's a total fabrication. Yes, that's one of the things the warheads were calling people who questioned the claims of Saddam having nukes, but for someone today to say they were paranoid is really fantastic.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:37 AM on March 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


I want to tell a little story. And if the mods think it isn't germane, then please delete this. It's about part of what lies at the root of my personal beliefs--part of the reason why I am politically the way I am-- and also about how and why I can be both radical (in the sense of getting to the roots of things) and in favor of working with folks with whom I may have some important disagreements, provided there is some common ground. In this context, the common ground is doing whatever small things I can to prevent a further degeneration into what I deem to be a genuinely fascist tendency that has long been bubbling beneath our culture, but which is now exposing itself more boldly among the masses.

I grew up in a relatively polyglot, blue collar/lower middle class neighborhood during the 60s. Among my friends during those years were kids whose parents had fled Cuba when Castro took over, kids whose parents were survivors of the Holocaust, kids whose parents had left the discriminatory South and who were looking to better their lives in a relatively less-prejudiced locale. And Hugo and his family. You can imagine that I learned a lot about how regular life and world politics intersected from this varied grouping, and I do have some other seminal stories that helped shape my world outlook from them.

But it's Hugo that I want to talk about here. His family was a little different. They were in the US because his father had been offered a pretty good job. They were from Buenos Aires and were solidly middle class. They had no really politically challenging past, it was just circumstance we lived in the same block.

Hugo and his older sister were really cool. Very liberal, they turned me on to the Beatles in a serious way. I can remember singing Rocky Raccoon and laughing our butts off. Me teaching him about baseball, him being able to swim like a fish. Great guy, great friend. And I had a typical juvenile crush on his pretty and ever-so-worldly-seeming sister.

And sadly there came a time when Hugo's Dad took another job, a step up the ladder, and back home to Argentina they went. Roughly 1969-70. Hugo and I exchanged a few letters but as so often happens in life, we eventually lost contact. To this day all I have left are memories.

I said that Hugo's very liberal family did not have a troubled political past. But they moved back to Argentina just before the period of the hellish Dirty War. By 1974, Hugo and I were just coming into our adulthoods. Hugo's sister was already there being a few years older. They were very outspoken about their liberal views when I knew them and it was a kind of sweet liberalism--a benevolent, idealistic, and humane way of looking at the world that exists for that brief period of youth when hearts are more pure and the real impact of a harsh world is still not fully understood. I mean, for heaven's sake, I remember Hugo's sister reading bits of Gibran's The Prophet out loud to us and being very earnest about it.

Now, the rest of this is purely my imagination. I have no idea what has happened to Hugo and his family. I just have fear. And its the kind of fear that has persisted; from time to time it emerges from the recesses of my memory and niggles at me around the edges of my thought. Knowing what I know about their views and knowing what I know about how evil that period of Argentinian history was, I often wonder, "Did they come through all that unscathed?" In my worst moments, I tend to think not. It breaks my heart to even consider the possibility that Hugo or his sister might be among the "disappeared." But I know that it is possible that some bad things happened to that family. It weighs on my soul.

I've talked about how it's good to be a "practical idealist" and that I think that that is a fine way to look at the world and to approach it's problems. But I try to never forget that there might be very real consequences for adopting, and living, that view. We are now living in a situation where things could get very messy here in the US. It could get seriously violent were there to be another series of economic calamities that would further polarize our people. I console myself my saying that such a scenario is an outlier--and it may well be. But I'm also convinced that it's important to do a little work to help ensure that we have no Dirty War here.

I love the fact that youthful idealists are energized again. I also worry that things might go south for them in pretty bad ways. And so, I add caution, I suggest compromise when possible, I urge folks to work within the system and to change our institutions to reflect a more optimistic world view. We can't allow ourselves to get pinioned into an "all or nothing" situation. We each of us has to work for what we think is right and be willing to take the small victories where and when we can get them. And then keep working some more.

I'm sure that Hugo and his family had no idea of the dangerous, then-near-future, Argentina they were returning to. If they did, they would have stayed here in the US. I'm also pretty certain that once they became embroiled in that mess that they mostly tried to do the right thing. And that's why my (secular) prayers go out to them. And that's partly why my (secular) prayers for the here and now are both encouraging and cautious at the same time. Some things are worth dying for, but for goodness' sake, let's not let it get that far. I'm not happy with much of the Clinton platform, but I'm willing to work for and with the improvements that a Clinton admin might bring. But to do that, a Clinton admin must recognize that the Sanders phenomenon is real and that the issues are real. As others have said here--no more using the left wing of the party for it's votes, only to be abandoned thereafter.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:38 AM on March 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


it sounds like you are advocating lying to young Sanders supporters

Wait. Saying that Sanders still has a chance of being nominated (which he does, though it's not a large chance) and that they should go ahead and vote in the primary for the candidate of their choice (which they should, regardless of the probability that that candidate will win the nomination) is lying?

Let me ask that again. Telling people they can vote for the candidate they want to win is LYING. Because, apparently, they can't vote. Their vote doesn't matter, and they won't get what they want, and the establishment always wins. That's the "truth" that you want to tell people?

This is EXACTLY what will turn young people away from the Democratic party, and the political process in general. It's exactly the sort of line that turned me away from it. If all the Democratic party can offer is "it's inevitable" and "we have to vote for policies we dislike because Republicans are scary" then literally just fuck it all.
posted by Foosnark at 5:42 AM on March 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


Purity has its costs, too.

This argument always annoys me, and it's always used in support of ethically-compromised politicians or programs. How are we ever going to improve as a society, if we do not strive for the highest goals? There may be legitimate differences about where the good lies, and what the goals should be, but claiming we should give politicians a pass for voting in favor of a disastrous war they should have known better about is not the perfect being the enemy of the good; it's the good being the enemy of the very bad. Also, arguing that their votes made no difference to the outcome is just like the "all the other kids were doing it" excuse. Again, we should be able to expect our representatives to strive for good. The AUMF had no good in it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:48 AM on March 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


Two sensible articles sensibly finding the equivalence between Trump supporters and Sanders supporters.

Troy Campbell from Politico:
"Today, Trump supporters voice opinions that yesterday they may have been unsure of or publically afraid to acknowledge for fear of being alone and called a “racist” or “bigot.” Likewise, today, Sanders supporters voice opinions that yesterday they may have been unsure of or publically afraid to knowledge for fear of being alone and called a “socialist.” "

And Paul Krugman from the Times:
"Indeed, what the Sanders movement, with its demands for purity and contempt for compromise and half-measures, most nearly resembles is not the Trump insurgency but the ideologues who took over the G.O.P., becoming the establishment Mr. Trump is challenging. And yes, we’re starting to see hints from that movement of the ugliness that has long been standard operating procedure on the right: bitter personal attacks on anyone who questions the campaign’s premises, an increasing amount of demagogy from the campaign itself."
posted by Trochanter at 5:52 AM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


I, too, was an adult and there at the time, and my memory was that only very paranoid people thought that the evidence was fabricated.

I guess I might as well weigh in, as a fellow adult who was there at the time -- specifically, in the U.S. Army, but stationed at a recruiting battalion in a college town in a blue state. So I wore the equivalent of a suit to work every day, but I spent a lot of time talking to people who were and would be at the tip of the spear.

Our impression was that no one knew whether there really was good, solid evidence, but that Saddam Hussein was wily and had dedicated his regime to at least creating the impression that he was making WMDs, and we knew that he would be willing to use them (and, as Eddie Izzard would later point out, we knew he had them because we had the receipt). People who were almost certainly going to be in on the initial invasion were pretty goddamn scared that they would end up coughing their lungs out in the suburbs of Baghdad.

Did we think it was "fabricated"? No, thanks to some very important people talking about the possibility of a "low-probability, high-impact event", a lot of us thought that it was at least... to be charitable, cherry-picked.

So no, it didn't require paranoia to think that the reasoning for the war wasn't a slam-dunk case. Hell, a lot of us in uniform shifted to a sort of desperate hope that we would find WMDs, because the alternative was that a bunch of assholes in DC had thrown us into harm's way for nothing.
posted by Etrigan at 5:58 AM on March 17, 2016 [25 favorites]


Mark Singer's profile of Trump from May 1997 New Yorker:

Of course, the “comeback” Trump is much the same as the Trump of the eighties; there is no “new” Trump, just as there was never a “new” Nixon. Rather, all along there have been several Trumps: the hyperbole addict who prevaricates for fun and profit; the knowledgeable builder whose associates profess awe at his attention to detail; the narcissist whose self-absorption doesn’t account for his dead-on ability to exploit other people’s weaknesses; the perpetual seventeen-year-old who lives in a zero-sum world of winners and “total losers,” loyal friends and “complete scumbags”; the insatiable publicity hound who courts the press on a daily basis and, when he doesn’t like what he reads, attacks the messengers as “human garbage”; the chairman and largest stockholder of a billion-dollar public corporation who seems unable to resist heralding overly optimistic earnings projections, which then fail to materialize, thereby eroding the value of his investment—in sum, a fellow both slippery and naïve, artfully calculating and recklessly heedless of consequences.
posted by bluecore at 6:03 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


OkCupid: Make America Date Again.
Ashley Madison: Make America Mate Again.
Tinder: Make America Rate Again.


NHL: Make America Skate Again
American Association of Fishers of Chondrichthyes: We Also Agree With "Make American Skate Again" But We Mean The Fish Not The Winter-Sports Footwear
Il Consorzio del Parmigiano Reggiano: Make America Grate Again
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers: Make America's Grates Again (The Fireplace Kind Not The Kitcheny Kind)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:04 AM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


9/11 and Iraq: Make America Conflate Again
Food: Make America A Plate Again
Horses: Make America's Gait Great Again
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:08 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: A few comments deleted. If we're going to revisit this traumatic chapter of modern history within the context of the not necessarily less fraught present we really need to treat it with kid gloves. That means assume good faith, don't make it personal — more so than usual I'm afraid. Sorry to be a stickler for protocol, but I believe that's the only way this can work. Thanks, guys.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 6:08 AM on March 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


How are we ever going to improve as a society, if we do not strive for the highest goals?

That's just a glittering generality. If for you it's OK for the road to progress to go through Presidencies like Bush II instead of Gore or Trump instead of Clinton II, well, I just disagree with you on that.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:11 AM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


FWIW, I was 28 during the runup to the Iraq war and past my second Presidential vote (1998- Clinton, 2000 - Gore). I was opposed to the war, but if you had asked me why, I would not have said that it was because the evidence was fabricated. Yes, there were people who were publicly questioning the veracity of Rice's and Powell's claims and I was willing to consider what they said. BUT, I also am enough of a skeptic to have said (and would still say) without having a really strong grasp of each IAEA report on the Iraq situation and regime, I am not qualified to flatly assert the strength or weakness of the risk. That being said, I WAS opposed to the war - it seemed really strange to pursue a war of aggression against one particular state when there were (and are) clearly several nations in the world with weapons of mass destruction who have regimes inclined to use them against their own citizens or others. My question then was, why Iraq and not North Korea or Iran or Pakistan or Somalia or any of several other countries. I fully support peaceful diplomacy with those nations, so why wouldn't I support some sort of diplomatic solution with Iraq?

I think Sanders and Clinton are both good leaders within the Democratic Party. I am more in line with Sanders' economic views, but it is also very important to me that candidate Clinton is willing to publicly stand up to the NRA. That is a courageous stand that she does not get very much credit for and it is, again, very important to me. I think that aspect of her policy has been a bit glossed over in discussions here regarding the pros and cons of each candidate.

Lastly, I want to thank CincyBlues for her or his poignant story. I agree strongly with the point of view presented in those comments. The Democratic Party and American pop culture are the two largest vehicles we have for progressive change. They are both imperfect. But as someone who voted Clinton '98 and Gore '00, I probably blend a Democratic establishmentism with being really lefty for a party member. So, I say to Sanders supporters: Please stay in the party and add your ideas and advocate for them passionately to improve what the party can do for all Americans.
posted by Slothrop at 6:12 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Two sensible articles sensibly finding the equivalence between Trump supporters and Sanders supporters.

"Today, Trump supporters voice opinions that yesterday they may have been unsure of or publically afraid to acknowledge for fear of being alone and called a “racist” or “bigot.” Likewise, today, Sanders supporters voice opinions that yesterday they may have been unsure of or publically afraid to knowledge for fear of being alone and called a “socialist.”


Honestly, my discomfort with comparisons between Sanders and Trump isn't that there couldn't possibly be anything to it, but that it ends up feeling like that kind of "fair and balanced" reporting that treats both "sides" as equally valid (or in this case invalid). You know, what people used to complain about as "Democrats say moon is made of rock, Republicans say it is made of cheese," with both parties getting equal weight.

There are similarities, but the fundamental differences are pretty crucial. The notion that both candidates are extreme does an injustice to their platforms. There's huge (yuge) support for all the ideas that Sanders is advocating for, but so far I haven't heard those core ideas described as extreme, just that people think they're not politically viable. 70% of the country might support something that could be described as single-payer (although, of course, if you use that term or anything resembling Obamacare, support drops dramatically), but most of the arguments I've heard against Sanders' approach haven't been that single-payer is bad or unpopular - just that it would never be possible to get single-payer in today's political environment. But the thing itself, single-payer, is great.

Trump is advocating for the forced removal of all Muslims. That may be frighteningly popular, but Jesus, commentators maybe don't need to draw too much of an equivalence between that and the horrifying thought of single-payer healthcare. Yes, you can say the supporters are passionate, and yes, you can say there are pushy people. But let's not forget what the two parties are advocating for here. Drawing too much of an equivalence paints Sanders' policies in an extremist light that isn't deserved even if you think his supporters are unrealistic or overly enthusiastic.
posted by teponaztli at 6:17 AM on March 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


That means assume good faith, don't make it personal

Yeah, I owe an apology to the mods and to ArbitraryandCapricious for maybe taking things too personally.
posted by teponaztli at 6:19 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Siraj Datoo: Far Right In Europe Hope Donald Trump Will Set Them Free

David Duke Says Trump-Hitler Comparisons Can Only Help Hitler’s Reputation
posted by zarq at 6:25 AM on March 17, 2016


Honestly nobody should be telling any Sanders supporters not to vote for Sanders in any upcoming primaries (which of course depends on him staying in the race). Registering your preference should be encouraged. I think it's also fair for Clinton supporters to put pressure on the Sanders campaign to go ahead and drop out in favor of prepping for the coming general election but Sanders doesn't have to listen and he's obviously got a warchest to stay campaigning for the foreseeable future.

I do think that a certain point in time it's worthwhile asking why he continues to use Anti-Clinton rhetoric and run Anti-Clinton advertising if the way forward is pretty much impossible but free speech is free speech even if it results in a net loss for progressives in November.

I also think that there is danger in demanding ideological purity from our leaders. I'm definitely okay with the position that authorizing force in Iraq was/is a dealbreaker and if that is your line in the sand then you should vote your conscience in November. For me personally the risks of additional wars being next to inevitable under a Trump presidency is high enough that I am willing to look past elements of Clinton's record in order to avoid something worse. Yes lesser of two evils, yadda yadda, but I know way too many people that would be dramatically hurt by a Trump presidency to leave it to chance.
posted by vuron at 6:26 AM on March 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


I am always amused by the whole "Sanders supporters/purity/circular firing squad/zealous millenials" thing.....because I hang around with anarchists.

No, seriously, the whole thing illustrates how rightist, how basically anti-political American political culture is. The people I hang around with would be sort of in line with the most compromised, middle-road part of the European far left; by American standards they're crazy. And people talk about Sanders supporters like they are some sort of intolerant zealots just because they actually want what they want and aren't afraid to articulate that. (There's certainly sexism and racism among some Sanders supporters; but there's racism and class-bias among some Hillary supporters; I don't think that's what's in play here.)

Even what passes for the "left" in this country is basically saying to the kids "hey, wait, the choice is either coke or maybe root beer, stop asking for a glass of water", and then blaming the kids. That's pretty broken.

Also, how the hell will Hillary (should we be lucky and not elect Trump) be persuaded to tack left if there's not a strong insurgent movement for Sanders and Sanders-esque policies?
posted by Frowner at 6:27 AM on March 17, 2016 [28 favorites]


Clinton was among 29 of 50 Democratic senators who voted for the AUMF, including Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Biden. Kerry, Edwards, and Biden all ran for president, and during their campaigns none of them received the of the kind of vitriol for their votes that Clinton gets.

At the time of the AUMF vote, I agreed with those who thought that was a big mistake, because it would allow the Bush Administration to invade Iraq no matter what, and the occupation and aftermath would be a disaster. We were were right, but I can hardly blame those voted in favor of the resolution, especially two senators from New York, in the context of the political climate at the time.

Yup, Clinton messed up big time. It was a very bad vote. Sanders was right, and she was wrong. But laying the blame for the disaster still unfolding at Clinton's feet is a mistake, too. As Heywood Mogroot III points out, the AUMF was going to pass overwhelmingly--76 other senators voted for it. The Bush Administration is responsible, and those who wanted to "send a message" by voting for a candidate other than Al Gore in either FL or NH helped that administration to take power. In my opinion, those voters are at least as complicit as Clinton or any of the others who voted in favor of the AUMF.

Our votes matter. Protest votes may be satisfying, and voting for what one thinks is the lesser of two evils may be distasteful. But not voting strategically when the time comes is de facto choosing the greater of two evils. Something for all of us to keep in mind come November.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:28 AM on March 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


Trump is advocating for the forced removal of all Muslims.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Yes, he has suggested a moratorium on Muslim immigration and refugee resettlement, at least until we can vet people and determine whether they are a potential threat. That's quite different from "forced removal".

To my knowledge, the only people for whom this has been suggested are those illegally present in the country. So all that he's doing is suggesting enforcement of existing immigration law - hardly a radical recipe.
posted by theorique at 6:29 AM on March 17, 2016


If for you it's OK for the road to progress to go through Presidencies like Bush II instead of Gore or Trump instead of Clinton II, well, I just disagree with you on that.

I assume you're obliquely blaming Nader voters for the W presidency, which has been beaten to death here repeatedly, so yeah, we disagree.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:30 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump is advocating for the forced removal of all Muslims.

[CITATION NEEDED]


You're right - I'm getting my headlines mixed up. Anyway, my point wasn't so much that specific thing, but that Trump has been running a pretty extreme campaign.
posted by teponaztli at 6:33 AM on March 17, 2016


To my knowledge, the only people for whom this has been suggested are those illegally present in the country. So all that he's doing is suggesting enforcement of existing immigration law - hardly a radical recipe.

Trying to actually deport 12 million people is radical no matter what law you base the action on.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:33 AM on March 17, 2016 [24 favorites]


Kerry, Edwards, and Biden all ran for president, and during their campaigns none of them received the of the kind of vitriol for their votes that Clinton gets.

Kerry ran in 2004, when the war in Iraq wasn't nearly the clusterfuck that it later became.
posted by Etrigan at 6:35 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


And yes, Kerry did get criticism for that vote.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:39 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


barring people and forcing them to go through extra screening based solely on their religion is pretty fucking radical and anyone who can't see that being the precursor to forced removal and/or setting up camps is a poor student of history.
posted by nadawi at 6:40 AM on March 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


criticism is different than the scope of vitrol hurled at clinton.
posted by nadawi at 6:40 AM on March 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


Yes, but by 2008 when Edwards and Biden ran, the consequences were abundantly clear.

And you point out something important, the magnitude of the consequences were not clear at the time of the AUMF vote.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:41 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Kerry ran in 2004, when the war in Iraq wasn't nearly the clusterfuck that it later became.

I thought the idea being floated here was that Clinton is to be eternally excommunicate because the war was illegal and based on lies and "everyone" knew it at the time, not that it didn't go at all well.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:41 AM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


criticism is different than the scope of vitrol hurled at clinton.

Because tens of thousands of Iraqis died.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:42 AM on March 17, 2016


I mean, technically Trump's not advocating for forced removal. But I'd hardly call his stated positions at all reasonable.
posted by teponaztli at 6:42 AM on March 17, 2016


Honestly nobody should be telling any Sanders supporters not to vote for Sanders in any upcoming primaries

has anybody said this here?
posted by nadawi at 6:43 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


criticism is different than the scope of vitrol hurled at clinton.

And the 2008 crash, the Tea Party, and the Big Bank Bailout hadn't happened yet.
posted by Trochanter at 6:43 AM on March 17, 2016


Because tens of thousands of Iraqis died.

what? the topic is the scope of criticism levied at people who did the exact same thing and then ran for president. i'm not sure how this is a response to that.
posted by nadawi at 6:44 AM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


what? the topic is the scope of criticism levied at people who did the exact same thing and then ran for president.

No, it isn't. I mean, if that's your argument, you're wrong, because these things don't happen in a vacuum. 2004 is not 2008 or 2016.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:45 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, but by 2008 when Edwards and Biden ran, the consequences were abundantly clear.

And in 2008 she crushed them.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:45 AM on March 17, 2016


are we blaming hillary for the tea party? is anyone actually following the conversation or just getting their bon mots in?
posted by nadawi at 6:45 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


In my opinion, those voters are at least as complicit as Clinton or any of the others who voted in favor of the AUMF.

damn you nader, if it weren't for you Jeb Bush would've had to throw out more votes!!!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:46 AM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


I assume you're obliquely blaming Nader voters for the W presidency

No, just pointing out that the Nader voters in FL and NH put Bush in the WH.

My point above was with this that this same purity that people are expressing now vs. Hillary and her AUMF vote was what motivated enough of the Nader vote in FL to put Bush ahead.

"Blame" is your loaded term. It's just what happened in 2000. I don't think all 100,000 or whatever Nader voters in FL were happy with their effects of their vote in 2000 and hopefully we can agree that people in swing states shouldn't make this mistake again.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:46 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


No, it isn't. I mean, if that's your argument, you're wrong,

i'm honestly having a hard time following you at all. i'm discussing this comment. please don't take things out of context just to snipe at me.
posted by nadawi at 6:47 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders supporters, by all means keep supporting your candidate with your vote. Just don't not vote or throw your vote away in November if he is not the Democratic nominee.

For myself, I was a Clinton supporter in 2008, but by the time of the Pennsylvania primary, it was clear that Obama would be the nominee. So I voted for him for the sake of party unity. Clinton won Pennsylvania in a landslide.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:48 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


No, just pointing out that the Nader voters in FL and NH put Bush in the WH.

Nope, that would be the 300,000 Democrats who voted directly for Bush.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:49 AM on March 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


No, just pointing out that the Nader voters in FL and NH put Bush in the WH.

We need a new Godwin-esque rule. All political discussions on MetaFilter return to the question of who is responsible for Bush's election and the Iraq War.
posted by dis_integration at 6:49 AM on March 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


are we blaming hillary for the tea party? is anyone actually following the conversation or just getting their bon mots in?

The rhetoric, and the anger at corporatism, got a lot stronger after the housing crisis.
posted by Trochanter at 6:49 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie Sanders is not an anti-war hero just because of his vote against Iraq. He voted again and again in favor of appropriation bills funding the same war he initially opposed, was in favor of invading Afghanistan, Kosovo as well as a number of other measures. One of his staffers found Bernie's hawkish stance so objectionable that he resigned, calling it a "matter of conscience". When anti-war protesters staged a peaceful protest at his offices, he immediately had them arrested for trespassing.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:50 AM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


people should vote for and advocate for whoever they want, either now or in the general. if you're in a swing state and you want to protest and not vote for the democratic candidate, just be sure you're ok with the outcome when you cast that vote. arguing about who people should vote for is silly, especially since so many of us are in strong red or blue states.
posted by nadawi at 6:51 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Nope, that would be the 300,000 Democrats who voted directly for Bush.

This is not an exclusive list. More than 600 people didn't bother to send in their absentee ballot no doubt, too.

2000 showed that purity votes in swing states have consequences too, yah.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:52 AM on March 17, 2016


Trying to actually deport 12 million people is radical no matter what law you base the action on.

One has to wonder if any of his advisors pitched it as "Trump Lebensraum."
posted by zarq at 6:52 AM on March 17, 2016


This short piece written by an immigrant youth organizer in California is really harsh but contains some important truths for people who push a lesser evil line for the Democrats. It's something people have to deal with: a lot more Democrats protested Bush's wars than Bill Clinton's or Obama's.
posted by graymouser at 6:53 AM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think what Clinton supporters are reacting to is the level of viciousness that is characterized by H.A. Goodman and some of the people on the Young Turks where the criticism of Clinton is akin to the fever dreams of right-wing talk radio. When left-wing progressive journalists are using talking points from the WSJ and Breitbart I know that the level of loathing by some progressives for Clinton is not proportional to any policy issues she has. I'm not sure what is fueling that hatred but that was not the left-wing that I grew up with where compassion for the other was always the way forward.

I understand being angry and I understand being upset but the model I have always been taught to follow is the model of Gandhi and MLK and the historical Jesus and I can't see that any of them would stoop to the level of vitriol being thrown around at Clinton from some Sanders supporters on forums like reddit. I am willing to concede that the nature of reddit makes it possible that some of these Sanders supporters are actually Trumpistas false flagging but then I see the level of journalism that passes muster at Salon and I get kinda depressed.
posted by vuron at 6:54 AM on March 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


So many factors about this year's election are different that it makes it hard to draw too many comparisons with past elections, especially with something that's at least partly subjective like tone (which is also totally fragmented, since you have a bunch of different voices). On the one hand, people are talking about how the Sanders campaign is totally radical and different and tapping into the same outsider vibe driving Trump's extremism. On the other hand, the rhetoric from Sanders is being compared to rhetoric from people like John Edwards, who ran fundamentally different campaigns and attracted different people.

I think if we're going to look at past campaigns we should look at Dean, who was at least for a short time attractive to people in the left of the Democratic party. He was vocally anti-war, and used that for sharply critical leverage against the other candidates. The fact that he dropped out early and left us with a bunch of completely bland people shouldn't necessarily inform how we look at this year's election, because Sanders has been so much stronger than anyone was expecting.

Besides that, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that opposition to the war - even by people who weren't opposed from the start - has grown enormously since 2004. It's not that everyone had to believe Bush was lying in order to be on the right side, but we're talking about public opinion vs. representatives of the legislative branch of the government. It's not unreasonable to feel like members of the government should have been more critical of the evidence for war, especially in light of how drawn out the war was to become.
posted by teponaztli at 6:55 AM on March 17, 2016


One has to wonder if any of his advisors pitched it as "Trump Lebensraum."

I'm a builder, the greatest builder, and I'm going to build you the greatest, most beautiful, most fantastic Living Room ever. With a great big couch, the most beautiful white couch, not one of those imported couches, but an American Couch, for American Living Room.
posted by dis_integration at 7:03 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Had Gore won either New Hampshire or Florida, he would have prevailed in the Electoral College. Florida gets the attention because of the recount, but Nader received 22,198 votes in New Hampshire, more than 3x the 7,211 vote margin of Bush's victory in that stae.

In Florida Nader received more than 97,000 votes, about 150x the margin of Bush's "victory."

The Bush/Gore race was close enough that many argued Nader was going to be a spoiler, and that's exactly what happened with consequences that we still suffer today.
posted by haiku warrior at 7:09 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Had Gore won either New Hampshire or Florida, he would have prevailed in the Electoral College.

Sounds like he should have run a better campaign so 300,000 conservative/centrist Democrats wouldn't abandon him to vote for Bush in Florida.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:10 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


It was really only 5 votes that tipped the election in the end.
posted by teponaztli at 7:12 AM on March 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


H.A. Goodman and some of the people on the Young Turks ... forums like reddit ....

FWIW, I've been more or less obsessed with this election, and read everything I could from mainstream news sources and a bit of the old Politico/HuffPo/DailyKos/RawStory stuff, and I've never heard of H.A. Goodman until now, and was only vaguely aware of the Young Turks. I don't go to reddit for anything but really narrow subreddits, mostly programming related. Politics there is a disaster.

I don't think any of these three sources is representative of Sanders' supporters. H.A. Goodman sounds like someone who has no idea what's going on in his own head at any time, and has clearly incoherent stances. Reddit is basically the new 4chan /pol/.

If people here get defensive when things are said about Sanders supporters when you really mean people like H.A. Goodman, it's because that standpoint seems so alien to me. In my circle of Sanders supporters, both in meatspace and social-media-land, all of us are tripping over ourselves to say: yes, we're going to vote Hillary in November. We just want real leftward change, not the continuation of the status-quo.

I really hope you can separate out the crazies from the mainstream in the Sanders camp.
posted by dis_integration at 7:13 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Had Gore won either New Hampshire or Florida, he would have prevailed in the Electoral College.

Another alternative; from Wikipedia:

Tennessee was won by Governor George W. Bush by a 3.87% margin of victory, despite being the home state of Vice President Al Gore. Therefore if Vice President Gore had carried his home state, he, instead of Bush, would have been elected President.
posted by Wordshore at 7:14 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie Sanders is not an anti-war hero just because of his vote against Iraq. He voted again and again in favor of appropriation bills funding the same war he initially opposed, was in favor of invading Afghanistan, Kosovo as well as a number of other measures. One of his staffers found Bernie's hawkish stance so objectionable that he resigned, calling it a "matter of conscience". When anti-war protesters staged a peaceful protest at his offices, he immediately had them arrested for trespassing.

The excusal--or maybe outright denial--of this sort of behavior from Sanders while bitterly condemning Clinton from Iraq (as if it would have persisted without later bills that funded it?), that is the sort of thing that leads to people drawing a line between Sanders fans and Trump fans. It's abandoning any sort of facts that may lead to nuance because they don't fit with your narrative of your candidate as a superhero and the opponent as a supervillain.
posted by Anonymous at 7:17 AM on March 17, 2016


Wow are we re-litigating 2000 again? Because that shit was super fun the past few times that we've had that fight on the blue.

Vote for Stein if you have to preferably don't do that in actual battleground states but there might be an opportunity for an unofficial (and totally illegal if that bothers you) vote trading campaign so that people in shitty states like Texas where Trump will inevitably win will be willing to vote for Stein so that you can vote for Hillary.

That way protest vote gets registered, the greens get more support, and we don't edge closer to the end of the world.
posted by vuron at 7:17 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


The 300K Democrats who voted for Bush in FL were not voting for Bush as a protest. Bush had reasonable chance of winning, and in fact he did.

The 97K Nader voters in FL and the 22K Nader voters in NH voted for someone who had no realistic chance of becoming president. Those voters got Bush, which I am assuming was a lot less desirable to them than having Gore in the White House, whatever Gore's shortcomings.
posted by haiku warrior at 7:20 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


RakDaddy: Trump is going to choose one of his sons to be VP so the campaign can continue to stay on brand.

Trump/Trump 2016 would be funny. I just hope he doesn't pick his daughter. (WARNING: HE IS A CREEPY, CREEPY DUDE)
posted by filthy light thief at 7:21 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


The 300K Democrats who voted for Bush in FL were not voting for Bush as a protest. Bush had reasonable chance of winning, and in fact he did.

The 97K Nader voters in FL and the 22K Nader voters in NH voted for someone who had no realistic chance of becoming president. Those voters got Bush, which I am assuming was a lot less desirable to them than having Gore in the White House, whatever Gore's shortcomings.


Remove third parties from the ballots, then, and have done with it.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:21 AM on March 17, 2016


can we come back to this election? there are already enough hurt feelings in the room without slinging all the hanging chad mud around.
posted by nadawi at 7:21 AM on March 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


nadawi said it well above and just now.
posted by haiku warrior at 7:23 AM on March 17, 2016


I think it's a strawman to suggest Sanders supporters are hypocrites for not condemning him for votes on things like Afghanistan. Opposing the Iraq War is not the realm of pacifists. It was a uniquely terrible decision to invade Iraq even if you do believe the use of force can be appropriate.

As for funding the war, the country was torn apart already. It was into the "You break it you buy it," territory at that point.

The 300K Democrats who voted for Bush in FL were not voting for Bush as a protest. Bush had reasonable chance of winning, and in fact he did.


They wanted him to win and made him win with their votes...so they get less blame!?
posted by Drinky Die at 7:25 AM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trochanter: Two sensible articles sensibly finding the equivalence between Trump supporters and Sanders supporters.

Troy Campbell from Politico:
"Today, Trump supporters voice opinions that yesterday they may have been unsure of or publically afraid to acknowledge for fear of being alone and called a “racist” or “bigot.” Likewise, today, Sanders supporters voice opinions that yesterday they may have been unsure of or publically afraid to knowledge for fear of being alone and called a “socialist.” "


One is not like the other. Being a racist and bigot is really and truly a bad thing - there is nothing to be gained by publicly announcing you're either or both. But a socialist? That term has been smeared, just like health care and social security have been tarred as "entitlements."

I would be THRILLED to have a socialist president, and I think socialism is pretty swell, in the face of our corporate oligarchy.

Journalists: stop comparing these two camps as equals, because their rhetoric is so very different. Racism and bigotry is about exclusion and casting out The Others, which is decidedly NOT AMERICAN. On the other hand, citizen ownership, often demonized as “socialist,” has a pedigree dating to the American Revolution.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:30 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


As for funding the war, the country was torn apart already. It was into the "You break it you buy it," territory at that point.

That makes no sense. The proprietor of the Iraq Store was not demanding payment from legislators for breaking his Iraq. Sanders's record on interventionism leaves much to be desired, and that's a fair critique, even if it's a bit rich when it comes from centrist Democrats who support Clinton.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:34 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


As for funding the war, the country was torn apart already. It was into the "You break it you buy it," territory at that point.

Yeah, see, this. This is the problem. Clinton is a war-mongering she-beast, but Sanders has reasons and the issue was already beyond his control and sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote for something you don't like. Because he deserves the benefit of the doubt--but she doesn't.
posted by Anonymous at 7:34 AM on March 17, 2016


They wanted him to win and made him win with their votes...so they get less blame!?

Voter intent was as clear as mud in Florida in 2000.

How did a liberal, Jewish district end up casting a disproportionate share of votes for ultraconservative Pat Buchanan?

I think it's probably unwise to assume that any Democrat who cast a vote for George Bush or another Presidential candidate in Florida did so deliberately. Or that their intent was not chosen for them on the excuse of an ambiguous "hanging chad."
posted by zarq at 7:36 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm sorry, before this goes on, can we please just settle once and for all whose fault it is that Rutherford B. Hayes wound up on the ballot instead of James G. Blaine?
posted by beerperson at 7:36 AM on March 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


One is not like the other. Being a racist and bigot is really and truly a bad thing - there is nothing to be gained by publicly announcing you're either or both. But a socialist? That term has been smeared, just like health care and social security have been tarred as "entitlements."

It turns out that when one side is utterly batshit crazy, but powerful, it's really hard to be "fair and balanced" and journalistically "neutral" without making use of a bunch of false equivalences.
posted by dis_integration at 7:37 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am not a fan of the war and most people who know me would laugh at anyone referring to me as a "centrist". I simply think double-standard held by Sanders supporters combined with the strength of their vitriol against Clinton is frankly disturbing. The Iraq War is one example. There are numerous others.
posted by Anonymous at 7:37 AM on March 17, 2016


And again, that's the bizarro world of US politics - we literally have Serious People saying that being a very, very moderate semi-socialist (someone who would probably actually be on par with the early seventies Conservative British PM Edward Heath, for instance) is somehow the moral and intellectual equivalent of being a white supremacist.

That is, that you need to engage in the same psychological process to arrive at very moderate gradualist semi-socialism that you do to arrive at the idea that people of color are inferior to whites and should be second-class citizens/subject to violence. Yes, only in America, folks.

This is intensely depoliticizing - that's the key. There's two bad ideas in play. The first is that socialism is morally equivalent to white supremacy, of course. But the second is that politics isn't about content, it's about affect.

Of course, no one is actually a socialist because they've thought it out and believe in it as a policy thing; they're socialists for the same murky mass of resentment, hatred, self-satisfaction and fear that might drive others to burn a cross or punch a reporter. Socialism has no content in this interpretation - it's just an emotional pathology.

As an anarchist, I've got to say that I find that really dumb.
posted by Frowner at 7:38 AM on March 17, 2016 [21 favorites]


Yeah, see, this. This is the problem. Clinton is a war-mongering she-beast, but Sanders has reasons and the issue was already beyond his control and sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote for something you don't like. Because he deserves the benefit of the doubt--but she doesn't.

That's a completely ridiculous characterization of my comment.

We disbanded their army and caused a civil war. Someone had to provide basic security and stability at that point. If we had left right in the middle of it the consequences would have been far more bloody than even ISIS has become.

The point at which you avoid that is by not invading in the first place, not abandoning the civilians you have recklessly and needlessly endangered.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:44 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


This isn't about ideological purity, it's about human lives.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:45 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


The people who voted for Bush get just as much blame--much more, in fact.

My point is that Bush voters in FL had a reasonable chance of getting what their candidate elected. On the other hand Nader voters had no realistic chance that their candidate would become president, and they missed the chance to prevent the election of someone whom they presumably wanted (much?) less than the other candidate that did have a fair chance. It was a huge missed opportunity for them.

Nader himself must have (or should have) recognized this and advocated for his supporters to throw their support to Gore in those states where the election was close.
posted by haiku warrior at 7:45 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bernie Sanders wouldn't end the drone program.

I don't really buy the argument that he would be so much better for foreign policy.
posted by zutalors! at 7:52 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


And again, that's the bizarro world of US politics - we literally have Serious People saying that being a very, very moderate semi-socialist (someone who would probably actually be on par with the early seventies Conservative British PM Edward Heath, for instance) is somehow the moral and intellectual equivalent of being a white supremacist.

Nice strawman, but as the people who have used this comparison have stated over and over again it is not about the specific views but the characterization of their opponents. Or, you know, exactly what my comment said:

"I simply think double-standard held by Sanders supporters combined with the strength of their vitriol against Clinton is frankly disturbing."

If you are able to find an explanation for every compromise your candidate has made while intensely demonizing their opponent for theirs--even when those compromises may have been the same--then it is worth taking a step back and wondering about the place your discourse is coming from. This applies to humans, period.
posted by Anonymous at 7:55 AM on March 17, 2016


National Review's Revolt Against the Masses
National Review has been struggling mightily to convince Republicans not to nominate the real estate mogul, going so far as to publish an entire issue devoted to the cause, "Against Trump." But if Williamson's article is part of National Review's larger persuasive agenda, it seems like a singular misstep. After all, you rarely win people over by telling them that all their woes are their fault.

However, Williamson's argument that the white working class "failed themselves" makes more sense if we place it in National Review's intellectual lineage. The magazine was founded as the organ of a distinctively aristocratic conservatism, one that in the early days never concealed its scorn for ordinary people. In recent decades, that aristocratic conservatism has sometimes been obscured by a populist mask, but under the pressure of Trumpism, National Review is showing its true face.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:56 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


(Are there any active threads for discussing literally anything about this election other than reasons why Clinton, Sanders, and their respective supporters are terrible people who will ruin everything?)
posted by nicepersonality at 8:01 AM on March 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


i don't buy the argument that gore would have been less likely to escalate the war against iraq or any of this hippie punching bullshit

what we have here is people trying to shift responsibility for their deeds onto a small minority of scapegoats

guilt does funny things
posted by pyramid termite at 8:01 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Caitlin MacNeal: Notorious Islamophobe Frank Gaffney To Join Cruz National Security Team
A leading proponent of the notion that there is an existential threat from "creeping Sharia," Gaffney is known for his extreme anti-Muslim statements and activism, as TPM has chronicled. He has said that members of the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the Obama administration, specifically attacking Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. He's also argued that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wanted to introduce Sharia law into the U.S. government.

Gaffney was banned from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2010 after he accused CPAC officials like Grover Norquist of infiltrating the organization on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. He re-emerged at CPAC this year, where he led a panel called "Countering the Global Jihad."
Just so we don't forget that the current runner-up is also cozying up to actual hate groups.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:02 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


i don't buy the argument that gore would have been less likely to escalate the war against iraq or any of this hippie punching bullshit

I mean, is there any evidence at all that Gore would have gone to war in the first place?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:02 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]



We disbanded their army and caused a civil war. Someone had to provide basic security and stability at that point. If we had left right in the middle of it the consequences would have been far more bloody than even ISIS has become.

The point at which you avoid that is by not invading in the first place, not abandoning the civilians you have recklessly and needlessly endangered
.

Drinky Die's statement is important with respect to my view of Clinton's, Biden's, Kerry's, and other's votes. They did not vote to disband the army and abandon civilians. That was the decision of the incompetent people in the Bush Administration.

It's plausible to argue that those supporting the AUMF should have known the Bush Administration would use the vote as cover to invade regardless of whether WMDs were found, but IMO it's a stretch to think that they were voting for those catastrophic decisions made after taking over the country.
posted by haiku warrior at 8:03 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: Hi folks, maybe at this point let's try dropping the (a) election of 2000, (b) the Iraq War, and (c) personal moral evaluation of Clinton supporters or Sanders supporters.... since folks ahve stated their positions on these plenty, and each of these topics has been discussed one million times and going around in further circles on them keeps the thread from being able to discuss anything new.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:06 AM on March 17, 2016 [20 favorites]


So just for a fun thing to play with, the NYT has this delegate calculator (also with a Democratic version) that helps you see what impact the changing support levels of the primary candidates will have on the election overall.
posted by graymouser at 8:11 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


May I make statement and a request? Most Clinton supporters are reasonable and well-meaning people respectful of Sanders and his supporters, but a few are not. Most Sanders supporters are reasonable and well-meaning people respectful of Clinton and her supporters, and a few are not. We see a lot from "the few" of both camps here demonizing the other side, and their positions are by now well known

I'd like to see more from "the most" about how to make the country a better place regardless of who wins the nomination.
posted by haiku warrior at 8:14 AM on March 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


On preview what LobsterMitten said.
posted by haiku warrior at 8:16 AM on March 17, 2016


I'd like to see more from "the most" about how to make the country a better place regardless of who wins the nomination.

For me, I'm trying to get more involved in local races. Hoping to help elect Josh Gottheimer to Congress and (in two years) put a Democrat in the Governor's Mansion (hell, s/he could probably move in now and get started, it's not like Christie's ever there).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:22 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]




I'd like to see more from "the most" about how to make the country a better place regardless of who wins the nomination.

* local races
* midterms

srsly hairsplitting about the policy nuances we'd like to see in the executive branch before we have these things locked the fuck down is like debating what color racing stripes to paint on our hot rod before we've figured out how to build a combustion engine
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:01 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't really think you can be a news producer about anything much more than car reviews if you don't know what 88 stands for.
posted by OmieWise at 9:02 AM on March 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'd like to see more from "the most" about how to make the country a better place regardless of who wins the nomination.

Something that I haven't seen discussed much in these threads is public education.

Clinton likes to talk about ways to improve K-12 public education, which is something that I've noticed less of in Sanders' speeches. He in turn seems to talk about college education more than she does -- which is no surprise since free tuition is one of his platforms.

I'm a parent of two kids enrolled in the country's largest public school system, and I'd like to see the federal government focus education funding (including earmarking funds for music, science and art,) and establish national standards far better than they're currently doing. I'd like to see them take a top-down approach towards assisting states with failing schools, making early education available to everyone and addressing low-income disparities in education quality. Strengthen public schools and increase transparency for charters, so they will be held to public standards. Federal standards for textbook content would be helpful as well.

Frankly, I'd also like to see the federal government take a stand against religious doctrine being taught to schoolchildren either as scientific fact or as an "alternative view."

The American Federation of Teachers has endorsed Clinton, and their site is filled with posts about her defense of unions. However, they also have posted Sanders' responses to their candidate questionnaire, and that's an interesting read with excellent points and ideas. It's a little more detailed in a few spots than the page on his campaign website, which is in turn far more detailed than Clinton's on the same topic.

We owe it to our children to give them the best educations possible through content and standards and funding and assistance, and by paying their teachers what they deserve, rather than the pittance they currently receive.
posted by zarq at 9:02 AM on March 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


lol wut 88 is a Celtic thing?

"The 8 stands for H, the 8th letter of the Latin alphabet, which the Celts used, and so 88 means, uh... Hail Henge! Yeah, Hail Henge! It's toooootally not white supremacist guyzz!!"
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:03 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Lol no a 88 tattoo is totally not Neo-Nazi code to for "Heil Hitler" PBS. Jesus where did the reporter and producers get their journalism degree.

Two side to every story so let's give White Nationalists a chance to spout some nonsense.
posted by vuron at 9:03 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Celtic Cross? Sure, I'll give you a pass. 88, and that pass is done.
posted by corb at 9:06 AM on March 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


huh? it's a joint tribute to The Nails, and my favorite robot bounty hunter!

I feel kinda bad for people born in '88, since appending your birth year to your online handle is a pretty common thing but I still give it the side-eye when I see it in that context
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:07 AM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


I feel kinda bad for people born in '88, since appending your birth year to your online handle is a pretty common thing but I still give it the side-eye when I see it in that context

If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit.
posted by zarq at 9:13 AM on March 17, 2016


One thing I've really like in regards to Clinton has been her listening tours where she goes around and meets with a lot of people and actually listens to their thoughts and concerns and doesn't immediately go into stump speech mode. Yes a cynic would just suggest she's a very skillful politician but it actually seems like she listens to the groups that she meets with and actually responds in a way that reflects an extreme level of knowledge about issues of importance to voters.

This articleHow Clinton Won Harlem illustrates that in a way that I found deeply moving and it helped crystallize why I think she'll be a great president.

She might not be perfect but it seems like she understands intersectionality at a level I find extremely rare for a national politician. This is not someone who just memorizes their stump speech but has a deep understanding about how topics like race and gender combine with socio-economic factors to deeply impact people's lives in negative ways.

And people wondered why minority voters have powered her campaign
posted by vuron at 9:14 AM on March 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


I don't really think you can be a news producer about anything much more than car reviews if you don't know what 88 stands for.

The Post article rdr links to has a sample response that says the 88 is just an obscure and innocuous reference for auto racing enthusiasts:

"You are full of S””’. You don’t no what you’re talking about. The 88 is for Dale Earnhardt Jr. that’s his car #. The cross is the Celtic Cross. It has nothing to do with the Aryan Nation. You’re the epitome of the low information voter!"
posted by FJT at 9:15 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I bet that person pronounces epitome Epi -TOAM
posted by zutalors! at 9:19 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Gotta admit, I don't know what 88's about. Don't tell me. I don't think I care. If I do I'll look it up somewhere else.
posted by Trochanter at 9:19 AM on March 17, 2016


What it wasn't even a regular celtic cross but a full on Stormfront Odin's Cross. Jesus PBS get your shit together.
posted by vuron at 9:21 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


We owe it to our children to give them the best educations possible through content and standards and funding and assistance, and by paying their teachers what they deserve, rather than the pittance they currently receive.

I completely agree. Specifically an investment in early childhood education, as that has been shown to maximize quality-of-life outcomes for the most poor. If you have $50 billion and you want to the best cost-to-impact ratio, you put that towards ECE, not debt relief (sorry college students).

Also, I strongly believe a more robust K-12 public education system would go a long way towards eliminating the sort of magical thinking that leads to the rise of candidates like Trump.
posted by Anonymous at 9:28 AM on March 17, 2016


"You are full of S””’. You don’t no what you’re talking about. The 88 is for Dale Earnhardt Jr. that’s his car #. The cross is the Celtic Cross. It has nothing to do with the Aryan Nation. You’re the epitome of the low information voter!"

Hah!
posted by OmieWise at 9:32 AM on March 17, 2016


I don't really think you can be a news producer about anything much more than car reviews if you don't know what 88 stands for.

Oldsmobile!
posted by phearlez at 9:32 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


the 88 is just an obscure and innocuous reference for auto racing enthusiasts

If you follow NASCAR, recognition of Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s car number parallels recognition of Michael Jordan's jersey number.

That said, people do not tattoo it on their bodies without some kind of car illustration to accompany it, and that woman is obviously a big ol' Nazi and anyone arguing different is delusional at best.
posted by Anonymous at 9:44 AM on March 17, 2016


To be fair to Grace Tilly, with a Stormfront logo tat on one hand and a fraktur 88 on the other there's not a lot of options for employment other than a Trump campaign office.
posted by theodolite at 9:53 AM on March 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


Neoconfederates : "Heritage, not hate" :: White supremacists : "I really just like Dale Jr."
posted by tonycpsu at 9:54 AM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ted: Okay, if you guys are really us, what number are we thinking of?
Nazi Bill and Nazi Ted: EIGHTY-EIGHT, DUDE!!!
posted by Artw at 9:54 AM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


there's not a lot of options for employment other than a Trump campaign office

I hear there are some open positions at Breitbart…
posted by nicepersonality at 9:57 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit.

Oh fuck. I just realized, I have at least one old usenet/email handle which was a Buckaroo Banzaii reference...and ended in 88. Fuck fuck fuck fuck.

So yeah, people could totally not get the reference- or at least not fifteen or more years ago.
posted by happyroach at 10:28 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton's super PAC has released a response ad to the Trump/barking ad. It's pretty great. I hope they continue with the "just laugh at him" approach, I think it's a winner (or, at least it makes me happier to laugh at the absurdity of Trump than to think about the fact that people are actually voting for him).
posted by melissasaurus at 10:30 AM on March 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


That is amazing, melissasaurus.

Incidentally, I think Hillary has an awesome laugh. I could listen to her laugh mockingly at these fools all day. Put her and Obama in the same room and the sheer level of Done With This Shit would be overwhelming.
posted by Salieri at 10:35 AM on March 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


Thanks, China, that's real helpful.
posted by Artw at 10:37 AM on March 17, 2016


Yeah Trump writes his own punchlines. Honestly whoever the Democrats put against Trump is going to wipe the floor with that guy.
posted by zutalors! at 10:50 AM on March 17, 2016


Well the lusting after his own daughter might pick him up some of the much underestimated skeevy creep demographic.
posted by vuron at 10:56 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


So apparently Lindsay Graham is endorsing Ted Cruz? Uh...okay, dude. In the meantime, I'll let Twitter respond for me:

@aedwardslevy: Ben Carson is endorsing the guy who called him a child molester.

Lindsey Graham is endorsing the guy he kinda wants to see murdered.

posted by zombieflanders at 10:58 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


For those that don't know, here's the context for the second sentence.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:59 AM on March 17, 2016


"I got a good brain."
posted by Trochanter at 11:00 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


The sign on the jar said "Abby Normal."
posted by zarq at 11:09 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I got a good brain
One that fits in my head
One that thinks my thoughts
Helps me eat my bread
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:10 AM on March 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


Well Trump did promise Ben Carson a position as Secretary of Sleepy with a portfolio of investigating Egyptian Granary Building techniques.
posted by vuron at 11:14 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


He's got a brain in his head and feet in his shoes!
He'll take the country any damn direction he choose!
posted by nubs at 11:16 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Guys it's not a good brain, it's a very good brain. I'm not sure if we can continue the discussion with this kind of misrepresenting of facts.
posted by Fleebnork at 11:20 AM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah Trump writes his own punchlines. Honestly whoever the Democrats put against Trump is going to wipe the floor with that guy.

I wish I had that level of trust in voters.
posted by Artw at 11:22 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Lindsey Graham is making an all-out effort to be voted "Hottest Mess" in this year's yearbook.

(Context, which doesn't explain much.)
posted by benito.strauss at 11:24 AM on March 17, 2016


> Honestly whoever the Democrats put against Trump is going to wipe the floor with that guy.

Yeah, like George Smitherman.
Who?
You know, the guy who beat Rob Ford for Toronto Mayor.
Oh. .... Wait? .... Oh!
posted by benito.strauss at 11:28 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


If you guys haven't been watching Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, you're missing out. She's had some really great segments on how Everyone Hates Cruz, Clinton's AIDS gaffe, the Flint debate, and Trump supporters, and started the #smileforJoe hashtag yesterday.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:31 AM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Holy shit that black guy defending Trump in that Samantha Bee segment. Everyone else just seemed completely clueless but he even brought up stuff like microagressions and still is able to defend Trump against allegations that Trump = Racist Uncle at Thanksgiving.
posted by vuron at 11:42 AM on March 17, 2016


I was at my dentist yesterday talking to some of the staff and people in the waiting room and tried to artfully conduct a mini focus group to get the temp on Trump. I don't think I got anyone's true feelings, staff in particular were on best neutral behavior. But one thing really jumped out at me... whether they favored him or not, they all seemed to agree that Trump is a good businessman and that a greater focus on business would not be horrible for the country. I I tried to poke holes in that but these words won the day: "rich" "tv shows" "hotels" "international deals."

I thought about this a lot last night. Because I live online, I thought everyone knew his University, steaks, water etc are bogus. Nope. Business is probably a bit of a black box for most people so wealth equals success. I think one line of attack must be to continue poking holes in that "businessman" persona. I bet a "Business people against Trump" might be an effective approach - get other wealthy business people to ridicule him.

People in this thread are heavily invested. Most people aren't political junkies and don't spend their free time on this stuff so they get surface impressions.

I think back on the buildup to Iraq and to why some people knew the Iraq war propaganda was bogus while others didn't. At the time, I read mefi threads, all the lefty blogs and news sources, foreign media, and the like. I was positive that the "evidence" was manufactured (and I think legislators should have been, too). But when I talked to friends and family, I had a lot of push-back of the "yes, but Bush et al probably have a lot of intelligence that you don't" variety. I was very antiwar and many of my friends were, but I remember feeling in the minority. I would say that many who got news from the web were more in the know than those who didn't. And there was no social media then, either, you had to be invested and go out of your way to learn the truth. The mainstream media was cheer-leading us into the war.

Those of us who spend our days and evenings arguing about every little nuance on mefi are pretty invested. We need to remember that most people are getting a surface level of what the media doles out ... and it appears to be all Trump all the time.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:58 AM on March 17, 2016 [27 favorites]


Do a business on America! Adultman '16
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:18 PM on March 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


Mod note: Several comments deleted; asking again for folks to set the Iraq War thing down. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:19 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]




Is this the thread where we discuss Trump’s threat of riots if he’s denied the nomination at the convention?

Trump's statement was:
  • Characteristically unsettling
  • Representative of the "new normal", so therefore unremarkable
  • Made less than 24 hours ago, but given the constant stream of insanity, feels more like a million years in the past
posted by My Dad at 12:48 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]




Bill De Blasio on the generational divide in the Democratic Party. I thought this was a good analysis.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:48 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


it wasn't even a regular celtic cross but a full on Stormfront Odin's Cross

wait, a full on what what what WHAT?

As a member of the Episcopal Church, arguably the closest thing* this country has to an actual Celtic Christian movement... um. Um.

Today in particular, it's a good time to note that that St. Patrick wouldn't approve of this.

*not particularly close, to be fair
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:50 PM on March 17, 2016


With this attitude who can he [Trump] pick for VP?

I think it's pretty clear that Trump is going to pick himself for VP. I mean, he's really smart, the smartest guy there is.
posted by cooker girl at 1:06 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


he has a good brain. the most beautiful brain. the smartest, best, most amazing brain, you won't believe his brain, it's so great. Boycott Apple.
posted by zutalors! at 1:07 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Boycott Apple? Bah! When he's prez, he'll tell businesses what to do!

BY THE POWER OF HIS BRAIN!

Trump's Brain/Trump's Hair 2016!

(Cabinet positions to be filled by Trump's Huge Fingers, and is other Huge Endowment)
posted by filthy light thief at 1:09 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


People in this thread are heavily invested. Most people aren't political junkies and don't spend their free time on this stuff so they get surface impressions.

This x1,000,000. I was doing outreach yesterday which involved sitting in a busy hospital entryway (in Chicago, IL). A kid, maybe 7 years old, was walking past, eyes glued to some game he was playing on a smartphone but also saying to his dad "They should put Trump in jail".

I think a lot of generally non-political people here saw the near-riot on the evening news last weekend, read the headlines saying that "Trump Won Illinois" yesterday, and are kind of panicking.

Obviously folks in this thread or who are similarly politically obsessed understood that Donald Trump won 40% of the votes in a Republican primary in a deep blue state -- definitely not great but also not indicative of some kind of Reagan-esque earthquake. (He got half a million votes to Sen. Sanders's 975,000 and Sec. Clinton's million and change.) But to the average low-information (is there a better, less condescending descriptor we can use there?) voter, I think that the political gamesmanship is suddenly, horrifyingly relevant in a way that it wasn't two months or even two weeks ago.

I hope so, at least. People need to stand up -- that includes left-leaning voters coming out to the polls, and right-leaning voters and elected officials saying publicly that they will not vote for Donald Trump for President, even if it means another Democratic presidency.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:10 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


People in this thread are heavily invested. Most people aren't political junkies and don't spend their free time on this stuff so they get surface impressions.

I think back on the buildup to Iraq and to why some people knew the Iraq war propaganda was bogus while others didn't. At the time, I read mefi threads, all the lefty blogs and news sources, foreign media, and the like. I was positive that the "evidence" was manufactured (and I think legislators should have been, too). But when I talked to friends and family, I had a lot of push-back of the "yes, but Bush et al probably have a lot of intelligence that you don't" variety.


This is what I was trying to get at. I knew the whole Iraq thing was a neocon fantasy Cheney had been planning since the 90s . . . but all my news resources and discussion areas were bluer than blue. MSM made me too mad for me to pay attention, and I didn't talk much with non-liberal people. So I have no idea what the non-skewed perspective was.

Anyway, I agree we will face a similar danger with Trump. It's easy to assume people know he's terrible, and I think there is a greater awareness among the MSM that he's unhinged. But at this point most of his supporters don't pay attention to the MSM and are, incidentally, in their own bubbles. If you look at polls of his supporters their viewpoint of the media is overwhelmingly negative.
posted by Anonymous at 1:12 PM on March 17, 2016


Does anyone know of a Sanders/Clinton voter thing which disaggregates more finely than the usual "under thirty" "thirty-sixty" "over sixty" thing? "Under thirty" is only eleven years of people, so to speak - people between 18 and 29. I'm curious as to whether there's any other break points - I would assume that people who are, say, forty are more likely to vote for Sanders than people who are fifty-five, but is that a correct assumption?
posted by Frowner at 1:14 PM on March 17, 2016


Is this the thread where we discuss Trump’s threat of riots if he’s denied the nomination at the convention?

Trump's statement was:
Characteristically unsettling
Representative of the "new normal", so therefore unremarkable
Made less than 24 hours ago, but given the constant stream of insanity, feels more like a million years in the past


I don't know, if Bernie would've gotten the highest proportion of voters but the superdelegates all still stayed pledged to Hillary, such that she would win at the convention, you don't think his supporters would have protests in the street or something? If Trump ends up with 47% of the primary vote and doesn't get the nomination a protest seems understandable.

Now Trump said riot, not protest, but honestly I'm not sure if he knows theres a difference between the two.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:24 PM on March 17, 2016


I've seen some polls with age crosstabs finer than that, yeah, but that's just futzing around on RCP.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:24 PM on March 17, 2016


Actually the crosstabs I've seen actually has Sanders doing better among people making over $100,000 than people in lower wage brackets than that. It was pretty small variances but I'm not really that surprised.

I wouldn't be shocked if Sanders does better among people with advanced degrees but I haven't seen any exit polling that is that granular yet.
posted by vuron at 1:24 PM on March 17, 2016


Frowner, CNN's results page for each primary has a link to exit polls, many of which have a pretty detailed breakdown of age groups.
posted by bepe at 1:25 PM on March 17, 2016


I've seen actually has Sanders doing better among people making over $100,000

The ones I saw, that would be true in one state and the inverse would be so in another. It was weird actually.

Pretty sure the guy I saw was using CNN info.

edit: Here's the page I was looking at. (leftie alert)
posted by Trochanter at 1:32 PM on March 17, 2016


I'm curious as to whether there's any other break points - I would assume that people who are, say, forty are more likely to vote for Sanders than people who are fifty-five, but is that a correct assumption?

As others mentioned, the CNN exits are the best data source I've seen. They break it down into 17-24, 25-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-64, and 65+. They do another more aggregated set of bins from 17-44 and 45+ that seems to have really clear differences in most states - e.g. in Illinois, 70% of people under 44 voted Sanders, while 63% of people over 45 voted Clinton.
posted by dialetheia at 1:38 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Sen. Sanders' supporters were behaving like Trump's do at rallies, he would absolutely call them out. Knock him for lots of things, but he's been pretty clear about wanting to take the high road. Most other candidates would've been swinging at Sec. Clinton about the emails / Benghazi / etc. and he has not because he believes that campaigns should be fought on the merits and on policy; there's just no justification to assert that he would be anything other than horrified by the prospect of his supporters rioting in the streets.

Protest? Maybe. But the way the Democratic rules are, the nomination will be decided on the first ballot. And as I've said all along, the superdelegates will almost certainly act as ballast, pushing whichever candidate is leading over 50% if they're not there already.

The only way I can see them supporting the candidate with fewer pledged delegates than their opponent is if there's a late-breaking scandal that renders the nominal frontrunner toxic for the general -- like if the whole FBI investigation whatever actually became a serious problem for Sec. Clinton's prospects, or if Sen. Sanders somehow takes the lead but then some footage of him worshipping a graven image of Josef Stalin emerged, or, you know...

Sore loser rioting is not happening in Philly, and if it did either of the candidates would take responsibility to tamp it down. Why? Because unlike Donald Trump, neither Sen. Sanders nor Sec. Clinton are leading a neofascist movement. Can we at least agree on that?
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:50 PM on March 17, 2016 [17 favorites]


dialetheia: Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors, NYT

Were Changes to Sanders Article ‘Stealth Editing’?
“I thought it should say more about his realistic chances” of doing that, Mr. Purdy told me. As first published, he said, editors believed that the article “didn’t approach that question.”
It's good to know that tireless servants such as "The Broken Ravioli" is out there keeping our fourth estate honest, but I do wonder if the NYT is applying the same standard of assessing "realistic chances" of success when evaluating, say, Donald Trump's grandiose promises.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:52 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Illinois and Missouri were oddly competitive in a way that Ohio wasn't. I know that Missouri was the primary focus of Sanders in the closing days and he dropped a ton into advertising there.

I'd have to defer to Eyebrows McGee's insight on the Illinois crosstabs but she and some other Illinois politics watchers were expressing some surprise in how the primary maps worked.

What's interesting is that Sanders definitely seems to dominate rural districts even though his messaging doesn't seem to be particular directed at rural interests. He definitely doesn't seem to have a broadly comprehensive agriculture platform at least in comparison to Clinton's. It's not bad but it's somewhat light on substance.
posted by vuron at 1:53 PM on March 17, 2016


I love that the NYT, historically a locus of irrational anti-Clinton hatred, is being slowly driven into her cold embrace by the collapse of every other establishment candidacy. That's just an unmitigated pleasure, that is.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:56 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]




tonycpsu, generally, I'd have to say good on Ms. Sullivan there.
posted by Trochanter at 2:04 PM on March 17, 2016


I really liked this article from Jeet Heer. The divide between Sanders and Clinton not just ideological, but also reflects their very different theories of political change (a lot of the same stuff we've all been arguing about here).

Hillary Clinton's history problem:
"Like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton has a theory of political change. But unlike his much-discussed “political revolution,” her thoughts about how democratic transformation happens rarely get fleshed out. Yet if we attend to Clinton’s own words, she has a distinctive view of how history works. While Sanders emphasizes grassroots mobilization, Clinton is much more inclined to see politics as a matter of leaders forging a consensus—and of social progress being made when those leaders are moved to do the right thing.

Clinton’s argument that she’s a proven pragmatist who can get things done—a lynchpin of her campaign against Sanders for the Democratic nomination—rests on a view of history that highlights leaders at the expense of social movements. This often leads her to tonally off-key statements that put her at odds with her own party’s base, many of whom have been shaped by the social activism of the civil rights, feminist, and LGBT rights movements. The crucial question is whether Clinton’s comments offer a window into how she really thinks about social change—or if this is simply the way she frames issues in an effort to speak to the broader electorate."
posted by dialetheia at 2:04 PM on March 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yeah, there's definitely weirdness in the way the Democratic primary has worked out in the lower Midwest so far that hasn't been explained. I'm sure there are several factors at work and I'm not really a data wonk (just play one on metafilter) but here are some possibilities I see:

--a higher proportion of disaffected and unaffiliated MI voters pulling a Democratic ballot to protest Rick Snyder, and in the process voting for Sen. Sanders

--The same kinds of voters pulling a GOP ballot to vote for Kasich in Ohio, where he actually had a chance to beat Trump

--some deeper cultural factors that are being revealed by a pretty clean policy divide on the Dem side

I dunno.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:10 PM on March 17, 2016


While Sanders emphasizes grassroots mobilization, Clinton is much more inclined to see politics as a matter of leaders forging a consensus—and of social progress being made when those leaders are moved to do the right thing.


That kind of gets to what we were talking about with the expert vs. elite disparity.
posted by Trochanter at 2:11 PM on March 17, 2016


Pretty sure the guy I saw was using CNN info.

edit: Here's the page I was looking at. (leftie alert)


I really liked the in depth analysis on that page. Then I got to what seems to be an unsupported by data assertion that Sanders can still win the nomination. The Jacobin analysis that showed a path (however far fetched), has of course now been supplanted since he underperformed what they said he would have to do on 3/15.

Does anyone know of a data-based detail of a path for Sanders to actually win the nomination that does not rely on him having to win every state contest from here on out? Someone must have put one together if such a thing is possible.
posted by OmieWise at 2:12 PM on March 17, 2016


Maybe this comment on the /r/s4p subreddit is what you're looking for?
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:22 PM on March 17, 2016


What's interesting is that Sanders definitely seems to dominate rural districts even though his message

It's not about his message. It's that Sanders, at his core, doesn't look like he actively despises rural voters and all they stand for. They're taking a chance that it's better to elect someone who doesn't hate them and will let them be, rather than someone who promises them the moon but laughs at them behind their back.
posted by corb at 2:22 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Basically, any path that allows for losing states involves massive blowout wins in states like California or New York.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:23 PM on March 17, 2016


Well, he needs somewhere north of 60% of the remaining delegates to win outright; so theoretically, if he ran up margins much higher than that in some of the big states like New York and California, he could afford to lose a few small states. It's pretty damn tenuous though.

I think his only realistic chance now is for some unforeseen scandal or such to break. If the Michigan results had been replicated in Illinois and Ohio, that might've been a momentum boost that could have pushed him over the line (if you squint). But that's not happening now and that was his best chance.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:26 PM on March 17, 2016


The current thinking that I'm hearing increasingly from the Sanders camp is that the idea is not that Sanders will actually catch Clinton (which seems increasingly unlikely based upon polling in Arizona and some other upcoming states) but that he'll bring her down below the threshold neccessary to win outright with pledged delegates and that they'll pressure Superdelegates to switch at the last minute. Hell Tad Devine has even indicated that they'll lobby pledged delegates because apparently rules concerning pledged delegates are cool to ignore.

Increasingly the Sanders campaign seems divorced from reality and it just seems like Tad Devine and company are taking the small donor base for a ride. Based upon what the consultants were getting in terms of media buys for Kerry '04 I would be shocked if Devine's consulting firm isn't getting 10% on media buys. With the crazy media buys Sanders has been engaged in he's making some serious dosh.
posted by vuron at 2:28 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Does anyone know of a data-based detail of a path for Sanders to actually win the nomination that does not rely on him having to win every state contest from here on out?

NYT's Nate Cohn has one today: Here’s How Bernie Sanders Could Win the Nomination. It's unlikely assuming that everything in the race stays static, but that's still an assumption that may or may not prove to be true. My only issue with his analysis is that he assumes that Latino voters will be a tough sell for Sanders, which seems unfounded- he's nearly tied or even won among Latino voters in states in which he's campaigned heavily.

Apropos of this discussion about his surprising strength in the midwest, I do like that Cohn notes that the "rich liberal" stereotype of Sanders supporters is also unfounded: "The metropolitan East Coast and coastal California are among the most affluent regions of the country. Mr. Sanders has struggled in places with high median incomes, even when those areas have a liberal reputation — like Boston or Northern Virginia, which anchor both ends of the Northeast megalopolis. They provide a pretty good model for what we can expect in between."

What's interesting is that Sanders definitely seems to dominate rural districts even though his message

One of Sanders' policy strengths (or weaknesses, depending on how you're used to seeing politicians sell their policies) is that it's very universal - if his whole platform passed, everyone would get a $15 minimum wage, health care funded through taxes on the wealthy, and public college tuition funded by Wall Street. He doesn't need to tailor his message to "rural voters" because most of them would benefit roughly equally from his platform.
posted by dialetheia at 2:29 PM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ok, so there really isn't a shot. The reddit breaks it down: "Basically this is what he needs to do (538 targets plus an extra 13% to make up ground):" That's fantasy, not a strategy. The Nate Cohn thing is just selling papers. It's punditry not a viable path. That makes the naked capitalism thing even more concerning. How are we supposed to trust the analysis of people who insist on something that is for all intents and purposes impossible. I mean, why should we pay attention to the reasoning and argument about issue "X" when the interlocutor is so clearly deluded (and more troubling, seeking to delude) about the largest issue? I'm not sure how that is supposed to build a viable progressive movement.

I've seen the "we'll get the Superdelegates" thing too, and I was wondering how it sounded to the people here on Metafilter who have been so mad about the unfairness of the Superdelegates who might go to Clinton? I assumed that was a widely held complaint among Sanders' supporters, but was it only here? Other Sanders supporters are pro-Superdelegate?
posted by OmieWise at 2:38 PM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


The remaining contests past this brief period where there are a decent number of small states and caucuses really aren't that friendly.

Arizona- Big prize next week, Clinton is killing it in the polling here
Idaho - Sanders easily
Utah-? Big unknown because basically 90% of the state is republicans but SLC is responsible for most Democratic votes.

Alaska- Assume Sanders
Hawaii - Sanders safely
Washington- Caucus so you gotta go with Bernie here but the chances of her being nonviable are basically 0.

Wisconsin- Is it Michigan 2.0? I think a virtual tie is likely here unless Madison goes insane for Sanders.

Wyoming- Sanders I assume

New York - Clinton is leading by massive margins in her state
Conn- Assume a split
Delaware- Clinton easily
Maryland- LOL Clinton by a massive margin
Pennsylvania- I think hoping for another Michigan is the best Sanders can hope for and hope that it's not a Ohio 2.0. Keep in mind that by this date the nomination is liable to be a foregone conclusion.

I think it's possible that Sanders narrows the gap by 50 or so delegates before New York and April 26 basically finishes him off.
posted by vuron at 2:39 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


While Sanders emphasizes grassroots mobilization, Clinton is much more inclined to see politics as a matter of leaders forging a consensus—and of social progress being made when those leaders are moved to do the right thing.

Ah yes, Sanders commitment to grassroots mobilization over Clinton's establishmentarianism is why he's done so much fundraising and stumping for local candidates!

. . . oh, wait.
posted by Anonymous at 2:44 PM on March 17, 2016


Also, it is very easy to say one person is not successful and another person is when you go by metrics of things the first person has actually done against things the second person says.
posted by Anonymous at 2:45 PM on March 17, 2016


Way back up the thread, lungful of dragon linked to this article about Ted Cruz denouncing the tritone.

For a while I wasn't sure if it was satire. It appears to be entirely serious, however, which I find as hilarious as it is mind-bogglingly anachronistic and also reminiscent of Muslim clerics arguing over utterly inconsequential minutiae like whether songs praising the Prophet remain permissible of they have been set to Bollywood tunes. The medieval prohibition against using the augmented fourth was something I was taught about in counterpoint and harmony courses, but it has never once, in the twenty-odd years since I took them, occurred to me that there might be people living today for whom this was an actual relevant issue of religious practice. Ted Cruz is going to miss out on a lot of great music. Maybe this is just another way to quite literally demonize African-Americans (jazz and blues being full of totally rad dissonances)?
posted by bardophile at 2:45 PM on March 17, 2016


Ah yes, Sanders commitment to grassroots mobilization over Clinton's establishmentarianism is why he's done so much fundraising and stumping for local candidates!

That's not what the piece is talking about. The subhead is clearer, maybe: "As recent comments showed, Clinton tends to downplay the role of radical activism in fomenting social change." Heer cites a number of examples.
posted by dialetheia at 2:48 PM on March 17, 2016


nah Submediant is satire.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:50 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ah, well.
posted by bardophile at 2:52 PM on March 17, 2016


> New York Times busted for anti-Bernie bias: The iconic, Clinton-endorsing newspaper slyly edits article to smear Sanders

The media is part of the establishment and always biased towards their own, so they'll always be biased against Bernie and his ilk. I remember some time ago, probably during Occupy Wall Street, someone here linked a great piece on how the media was always biased towards power. I wish I could remember where that article was.
posted by homunculus at 2:58 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Poe's Law...
posted by bardophile at 2:58 PM on March 17, 2016


What's interesting is that Sanders definitely seems to dominate rural districts even though his messaging doesn't seem to be particular directed at rural interests.

I haven't played with any data, but I would expect that it's acting as a proxy for race. Outside of the deep south, rural means almost no black people, though in some of the states that have gone so far it can mean latino or native american, not just anglos.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:00 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Tennessee was won by Governor George W. Bush by a 3.87% margin of victory, despite being the home state of Vice President Al Gore. Therefore if Vice President Gore had carried his home state, he, instead of Bush, would have been elected President.

Maybe we should have made East Tennessee into a state, too after they tried to counter-secede from the Confederacy.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:02 PM on March 17, 2016




Let's not mince words here--when we talk about Bernie's popularity with rural voters, poor voters, and the Midwest states ahead we're leaving out the "White" descriptor, because that's who Bernie's resonating with.

Awkward reality for Bernie Sanders: A strategy focused on whiter states
Without stating it explicitly, the Sanders campaign has made no secret of a strategy targeting whiter states. His advisers have argued repeatedly that he retained a path to the nomination that involved winning industrial — and whiter — Midwestern states. Campaign adviser Tad Devine talked about the need for the campaign to “pick our targets.”

Knowing that South Carolina wasn’t likely to tilt his way, Sanders left the state for 48 hours ahead of the primary to campaign in more heavily white states later on the calendar. He targeted five states in the run-up to Super Tuesday, all of them with relatively small black populations. He won four of them. Ahead of Saturday’s contests, Sanders did little campaigning in Louisiana. Instead, the campaign celebrated a trio of caucus conquests over the weekend in overwhelmingly white states: Kansas, Nebraska and Maine.
Propane Jane has gone out against the campaign's issues with race in two series of tweets from January and February:
When Racism Trumps Socialism
The Civil Rights Hero No One Ever Saw
The lesson of Obama in 08 and 12 is that women and people of color finally have the numbers and power to beat White rage at the ballot box. . . . Be mad at her all you want, but Hillary's strategy for 2016 is a testament to her recognition that chasing the White vote is unnecessary.
posted by Anonymous at 3:16 PM on March 17, 2016


Has anyone seen anything talking about what is most likely to happen from here on out with the GOP, strategy-wise? It seems to me that the most likely scenarios are:

1. Trump gets the candidacy outright. GOP doesn't run anyone as a third party, Trump loses. (Extra risk of losing the senate majority due to low GOP voter turnout)
2. Trump gets the candidacy outright, GOP runs a third party candidate, splits the vote.
3. Brokered convention, Trump runs as a third party, splits the vote.

I'm still of the belief that Trump has a pretty low chance of winning the general election. HOWEVER, there's the risk (likelihood) that he will become more moderate in the general and/or that he'll run to both the left and right of whoever the Democratic candidate is.* How likely would it be for Trump to pick up a significant number of additional supporters at this point, given how widely he's hated by the general electorate? How likely is it that he can lose any of his current supporters? Meaning, are they as die hard as they seem (I know a lot of them are, but it can't be all of them) or is there a line that could be crossed that even they won't tolerate? What would be the most likely thing to stop his momentum?

*I'm not really interested in getting into a debate on whether Hillary or Bernie would run better against Trump here
posted by triggerfinger at 3:17 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Trump does try to go to the center, I wonder if *that* might actually lose him some supporters. Its clear that no matter how extreme he tries to be, his core supporters love it. But thats what they love -- the brash, not "politically correct", etc persona he has cultivated. To go to the center and appeal to a wider audience he would have to lose some of that (especially the more explicit racism), which might seem like weakness to his supporters.

Usually a candidate has to worry about saying something shocking or offensive. For Trump, its possible he has to worry about *not* being offensive.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:21 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also, I'm sure it's been linked at Mefi somewhere before now, but I wanted to highlight this article about the one common trait amongst Trump supporters (which stretches across most demographic lines) is authoritarianism.
posted by triggerfinger at 3:21 PM on March 17, 2016


Usually a candidate has to worry about saying something shocking or offensive. For Trump, its possible he has to worry about *not* being offensive.

I've thought about that before and I'm still really unsure. His support has been incredibly rock solid so far. So much so that I'm not even sure that being more moderate would lose him supporters. I think that him looking weak is maybe the only thing that could really hurt him. But I just am not sure on this at all.
posted by triggerfinger at 3:25 PM on March 17, 2016


I think that him looking weak is maybe the only thing that could really hurt him

Yeah, I agree this is not at all certain, just seems like the most likely scenario if any. Of course there are a million ways they could be OK with it or rationalize it ("He's just saying that to get elected but we know what he really thinks!").
posted by thefoxgod at 3:28 PM on March 17, 2016


Let's not forget that Vermont is still a farm state. You can ignore that and talk about whiteness, but I think that's a mistake. Vermont has been electing Sanders to office for years, and farmers in other states have no doubt noticed.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:28 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


thefoxgod: If Trump does try to go to the center, I wonder if *that* might actually lose him some supporters.

The problem is many of his supporters don't believe he means the things he's said thus far. They say, "Oh, he's just saying that to get elected." So they'll probably just say that if he moves to the center, "Oh, he's just playing the game." For many of his supporters, his positions don't seem to matter, it's what he represents: breaking the system, sticking a thumb in the eye of the establishment. It's a cult of personality. I don't know how you counter a cult of personality.
posted by bluecore at 3:32 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


The problem is many of his supporters don't believe he means the things he's said thus far. They say, "Oh, he's just saying that to get elected."

I think they DO believe what he's said. They just say things like that so we don't outright call them racists or fascists.
posted by mmoncur at 3:35 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Vermont is a farm state compared to what? It's like 41st in agriculture.
posted by Justinian at 3:35 PM on March 17, 2016




It's also the next to least populous state in the county, Justinian. There are farms there, I promise.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:42 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


farmers in other states have no doubt noticed.

They comprise less than 2 percent of the total population of the US, so I don't think it matters. Most rural people today have nothing to do with farming. Also, Vermont's farm economy, like that of its neighboring states, is not usually what people mean when they think about "farms" any more. They're tiny operations compared to the commodity farms of the Midwest and Plains, and they don't have anywhere near the produce power of, say, California. It's a very different kind of farming economy that emphasizes small scale and value-added production. It's great, but it's something that's going to translate into a groundswell of rural support.
posted by Miko at 3:45 PM on March 17, 2016


The first name on the list? Frank Gaffney.

Trump is also a fan of his, as that article mentions.

This is the guy who thinks Grover Norquist is part of a stealth Muslim takeover of America....

This year just keeps getting worse.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:45 PM on March 17, 2016


triggerfinger: 2) Trump gets the candidacy outright, GOP runs a third party candidate, splits the vote.

Given Trump's hardcore 40% (of the Republican party, probably 30-35% of the general), and how deeply he offends and scares everyone else, any kind of substantial 3rd party candidate is his main -- and probably only -- path to the presidency.

He's winning the Republican primaries mainly because his opponents can't agree on a single front (ie are too selfish to quit in favor of one of them). Republicans would be suicidal to either mount a 3rd party effort of their own, or drive Trump to do so (which he clearly would) by stealing the nomination from him at the convention.

You know who else won power after getting only 36.8% of the presidential vote in a 3-way race?
posted by msalt at 3:47 PM on March 17, 2016


Let's not mince words here--when we talk about Bernie's popularity with rural voters, poor voters, and the Midwest states ahead we're leaving out the "White" descriptor, because that's who Bernie's resonating with.

Well sure, but there's nothing inherent to whiteness that would make white people prefer a 74 year old democratic socialist candidate, nor are white voters monolithic by any stretch of the imagination. I've been quite surprised by his strength in the midwest - I never would have guessed so many people there were open to democratic socialism and I find it quite encouraging. I think it's a dodge to say it just boils down to "whiteness"; while that may explain his relative strength there given the trouble he's had with Black voters, especially southern Black voters, it doesn't actually explain why so many white people prefer him to Clinton in many of those states.

I will say again that I think it's kind of disrespectful to imply that he's only resonating with white voters, though. Just to take Illinois as an example, he won 50% of Latino voters and 30% of Black voters. Outside of the south, he's generally gotten about 40% of the non-white vote if you look at the exit polls. He did extremely well in areas of Colorado and Oklahoma with large Native American populations, and did a lot of specific outreach about fracking in those states that seems to have resonated quite a bit. He won Dearborn MI, which has the largest Arab-American population in the US, by almost 40 points. To make an analogy, I'm sure everyone would be quite angry if I tried to imply that Clinton is primarily resonating with older voters because Sanders tends to win the youth vote (depending on whether you define it as under 30 or under 44) with 70-80% of that vote - that seems disrespectful and erasing of her younger supporters, so I wouldn't say it. I wish people would show other groups the same courtesy. I follow a lot of Black and Latino Bernie supporters on Twitter and they are frequently pissed off at being erased so much in the media coverage and commetary.
posted by dialetheia at 3:48 PM on March 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


Please. Sanders won Michigan in an upset ascribed in large part to the fact that Clinton "only" won 2/3rds of Black votes. Instead of the 80-90% she'd been getting in the South.
posted by msalt at 3:50 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I never would have guessed so many people there were open to democratic socialism and I find it quite encouraging.

Watched an interview with Chompsky today. He bluntly (you know Noam) said, "Bernie's not a socialist, he's a New Dealer."
posted by Trochanter at 3:51 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


> "The first name on the list? Frank Gaffney."

A timely reminder that *both* people who at this point have any mathematical chance of securing the Republican nomination prior to the convention are legitimately crazy.

Not a term I use lightly. At all.
posted by kyrademon at 3:51 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


I thought about this a lot last night. Because I live online, I thought everyone knew his University, steaks, water etc are bogus. Nope. Business is probably a bit of a black box for most people so wealth equals success. I think one line of attack must be to continue poking holes in that "businessman" persona. I bet a "Business people against Trump" might be an effective approach - get other wealthy business people to ridicule him.

I completely agree, but the attack has to go even further. dialetheia made a really good comment a month ago pointing out that Trump is playing the role of class traitor: "The idea is that he knows about all the corruption because he participated in it - but now he's turning his back on all his rich cronies because he cares more about the Common Man, or something to that effect."

As she points out, this effectively shields him from attack. If someone like Romney or Clinton attack him, he can turn around and say that this is a sign of the corruption he's seen and wants to fix. That it was just "business" that he had the Clintons at his wedding or made a shady real estate deal.

I would add that this also helps him with working class voters, because even though Trump is corrupt and cheated people, he can say that he's only cheated those who disdain the working class: other business people and elites. So, Trumps big buildings and casinos are not symbols of a corrupt executive, but trophies of a tough and savvy negotiator that proves he's the most effective at dealing with the elites and establishment when elected.

But, that's a lie. Trump is heavily involved with the most scummiest of scams: "multi-level marketing" or the pyramid scheme (no, not that one Dr. Carson).

Trump was a spokesperson at an MLM called ACN (previously known as American Communications Network) for a decade:

He told the Wall Street Journal he received $2.5 million for one speech at an ACN event in 2008; the Journal also reported he’s made numerous other appearances at company sales conventions over the years, including receiving more than $1.3 million in total for three recent company-sponsored talks.

You'll notice that the ACN website link goes to a saved Internet Archive page. That's because when Trump started his candidacy, ACN deleted that page. Trump has distanced himself from the company and said he doesn't know anything about it, and that he was paid a lot of money for them to show their product on The Apprentice, once in 2009 and another in 2011. In that episode, he had celebrities hawk ACN's "revolutionary" videophone, the futuristic sci-fi dream device from the 80s. It didn't sell very well. The supplier that made the phones had to lay off 70% of its staff. ACN itself has faced legal action by state regulators in Montana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

Trump also had his own MLM in 2009 until 2012, called The Trump Network. The company provided a customized package of vitamins and supplements based on urine samples that customers mailed in. It cost customers $140 for testing and a month's supply of vitamins. Of course, none of the claims were backed from the FDA and the scientific advisory panel that worked for The Trump Network had no power or influence and just there to make things look legitimate. A lot of folks were still feeling the effects of the Great Recession in 2009, and Trump promised that The Trump Network will, "help millions of people overcome the Recession and achieve the success they've always dreamed of."

Think about it. It's not very sympathetic, but the common response when the rich or powerful get tricked is to say, "Well, we shouldn't feel too bad because they can still cry into their piles of money." But it's much more despicable and disgusting when a multi-billionaire businessman takes advantage of someone for what to the billionaire is pocket change. The kind of people who get tricked by MLM are not other rich businesspeople. MLMs actively recruit college students, single parents, the unemployed, or the part-time employed. These are entrepreneurs with hopes and dreams that Trump has taken advantage during one of the largest recessions in the United States. This is the story that has to get out and be repeated over and over again to the public.

It's beginning to happen, but it's coming from a really weird source. Trump University made headlines a couple of weeks ago, and is yet again another example of Trump taking advantage of regular Americans. In that link there are a few ads that have real people that were scammed by the school. The weird part is those ads are made by the Koch funded American Future Fund SuperPAC. Under normal circumstances they would be the last ones I would point to for others to mimic, but I think they're onto something.
posted by FJT at 3:52 PM on March 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


I've been quite surprised by his strength in the midwest - I never would have guessed so many people there were open to democratic socialism and I find it quite encouraging.

The Midwest was a stronghold of socialism in the first half of the 20th century. In a sense, this is just returning to tradition.
posted by Miko at 4:00 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump's scams, and that's really what they are, are going to be the death of his campaign more than the xenophobia and racism. Because right now people are latching onto him because he seems successful and if he's successful at business maybe he could be successful running the US as a business.

His history of bankruptcies and failed business ventures and the reality that he's really not a billionaire are going to fuck him over (and that sort of juicy bits are definitely going to come out). When people realize that he's just a two-bit huckster trying out his latest con they are going to first go through all sorts of denial and then they are going to get very angry at Trump.

What's funny is that the Republicans can't even quit playing the keystone cops routine long enough to shank him in the ribs. Yeah they are still holding out hope for a contested convention that will salvage the brand but that way lies madness unless they have a definite way to keep Donald from going completely rogue and running third party.

Although I'm beginning to think that the Republicans are willing to take a loss in November if it means that they can block Trump now and avoid crazy damage to the brand. Because at the end of the day the brand is more valuable than anyone candidate.

As soon as the dust settles on this one you can guarantee that the Republicans will go to a fully proportional delegate system with superdelegates just so some insane "billionaire" doesn't go off the reservation again.
posted by vuron at 4:03 PM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I will say again that I think it's kind of disrespectful to imply that he's only resonating with white voters, though. Just to take Illinois as an example, he won 50% of Latino voters and 30% of Black voters.

I will say again that this objection is disrespectful to the political conversation we are having. No one has said, and no one means, that he has no support other than White support. The rhetorical device is completely understood, and means, the support of the group as a demographic whole. Sanders supporters use it when talking about Sanders winning young first time voters or whatever, so it's hard to understand the objection in this case.
posted by OmieWise at 4:05 PM on March 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


Fuck me. How deep does this rabbit hole go?

No wonder the Economist's Intelligence Unit can't decide which threat is worse. Given the range of choices, I wonder what strategies the Rest of the Planet is putting together in their scenario planning for the outcome of the elections. Whose crazy thumb will be on that red button in the oval office?

Oh my, look what a quick search turned up:

Australian Minister Says Trump Phenomenon 'Terrifying'

The increasing possibility of a Trump presidency is feeding nations’ worries about everything from the continuation of their trade deals to military ties with the US.

Foreign diplomats voicing alarm to U.S. officials about Trump
posted by infini at 4:10 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Barack Obama warned Tuesday that the 2016 race for the White House is damaging America's image abroad, sounding the alarm on harsh campaign talk that risks eroding gains seen during his presidency.

Lashing out at "vulgar and divisive rhetoric" in the race to replace him, Obama told a bipartisan group of lawmakers "this is also about the American brand."

"The world pays attention to what we say and what we do," Obama said in an early Saint Patrick's Day address, flanked by the Irish prime minister. "Why would we want to see that brand tarnished?"
via
posted by infini at 4:16 PM on March 17, 2016


It's possible Southern black voters see something in Clinton they don't see in Sanders. I don't like the idea that they are spoiling the great progressive movement.
posted by zutalors! at 4:17 PM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


I will say again that I think it's kind of disrespectful to imply that he's only resonating with white voters, though. Just to take Illinois as an example, he won 50% of Latino voters and 30% of Black voters.


I think it's disrespectful to only think of minority votes as a statistic without thinking about the interests of those voters.
posted by zutalors! at 4:19 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I follow a lot of Black and Latino Bernie supporters on Twitter and they are frequently pissed off at being erased so much in the media coverage and commetary.

Definitely some of the strongest anti-Hillary rhetoric I see comes from those tweeters.
posted by Trochanter at 4:20 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Like it or not American Hegemony has been pretty much the center of the geo-political landscape for the last 30 or so years and Trump neo-fascism threatens that stability in some pretty awful ways. I understand a desire to replace the neo-liberal status quo because it's been very destructive in many ways but looking at the yawning abyss that is the rise of Trump has to be terrifying to a lot of people across the world because one nation is flirting around with the idea that maybe Mussolini and Hitler weren't so bad after all.

Some activists might see the rise of Trump and the overthrow of the "establishment" as a positive sign, a Right-Wing forest fire before the new blooming Socialist Revolution but I'm serious that sort of way through the darkness leads to a lot of very good people getting hurt and honestly I'm not sure that there is any real tolerance in this country for a socialist revolution anyway because let's be honest a mortgage makes cowards out of most of us.
posted by vuron at 4:21 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


When people realize that he's just a two-bit huckster trying out his latest con they are going to first go through all sorts of denial and then they are going to get very angry at Trump.

I think this is basically what will happen. The way I see it, once the general starts, Trump has to make the leap from playing his reality show character who is surrounded by milquetoast pushovers and who always comes out on top of every exchange because he'll bark loudest if he has to, to being a candidate who has to gracefully face the full force of every debate, campaign speech, celebrity proxy, superPAC, and all the other resources a freaked out Democratic party will be able to bring to bear. Hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars will be spent on ads carefully designed to make him look bad and push his buttons and he'll be asked about them by the press constantly. There may well be traditionally-GOP organizations putting out ads against him, on top of this. You can't buy a thick skin. I think this is a recipe for a meltdown at some point. I wonder if he will ultimately be willing to debate Clinton at all.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:24 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Some people are interested in having families in the next few years and don't want to "watch the world burn" with a Trump election when Hillary will definitely advocate for family leave.
One of my friends is so socialist that Bernie is pretty weak sauce to him, and he has told me he wants to see fire in the streets more than once.
He's a white guy. He just had a daughter, and I think I'll need to ask him again.
posted by zutalors! at 4:26 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


What OmieWise said. Nobody is saying Bernie has no POC fans. But as a demographic whole, Clinton is leading among POC. Meanwhile his campaign and supporters are openly counting on the high proportion of White people in the Midwest to save his campaign. It's hard to believe there's not a connection there. It does not look good for a purportedly radically progressive candidate to rely on the same race-base strategy as the GOP. First of all, it's racist. Second of all, it's a dumb strategy come the general because he's not going to win without POC on board. Maybe instead of sighing in relief and saying "Finally, the Whites!" he should be asking himself why he's failing.
posted by Anonymous at 4:31 PM on March 17, 2016


the yawning abyss that is the rise of Trump has to be terrifying to a lot of people across the world because one nation is flirting around with the idea that maybe Mussolini and Hitler weren't so bad after all.

"Trump's candidacy has opened the door to madness, for the unthinkable to happen, a bad joke that might become reality," German business daily Handelsblatt wrote recently, describing the candidate as "grotesque."
posted by infini at 4:32 PM on March 17, 2016


huh? it's a joint tribute to The Nails, and my favorite robot bounty hunter!

Guess who has two thumbs and dodged a real bullet by not getting around to getting that Motorball tattoo he was thinking of.

posted by rifflesby at 4:32 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Let's not forget that Vermont is still a farm state. You can ignore that and talk about whiteness, but I think that's a mistake. Vermont has been electing Sanders to office for years, and farmers in other states have no doubt noticed.

Farmers? Seriously? Farmers?
posted by Anonymous at 4:35 PM on March 17, 2016


The Minority communities are certainly not monolithic and it would be stupid to suggest that the voting preferences of the community as a whole represent everyone in that community. What I do know is that the rhetoric following SC and the rest of the southern primaries where the African American community was called "low-information" and that the south was "the old confederacy" was not just extremely hurtful but a pants-on-head type of political move by the Sanders camp.

Basically you were willing to say that one of the most critical components of the Democratic coalition, one of the groups most impacted by systemic racism and economic violence, was worthy of nothing but contempt because they didn't vote for their chosen candidate.

That venting of bile at an entire demographic in the wake of SC likely cost Sanders significantly. He had a ton of momentum following a close finish in Iowa, a massive showing in NH and a respectable showing in the Nevada caucuses. SC was always going to be a massive loss but the extreme disrespect for the African-American community following SC and throughout Clinton's run on the South just furthered a lot of people's misgivings about Sanders campaign.

In the end I can tolerate promising the world when you really can't deliver because that's what politicians typically do but the failure to clamp down on the underlying negativity present at lower levels of the campaign (both in regards to race and gender) really depressed me because honestly I felt like Sanders was better than that. However I'm not sure that some of the people around his campaign are better than that.
posted by vuron at 4:37 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Second of all, it's a dumb strategy come the general because he's not going to win without POC on board. Maybe instead of sighing in relief and saying "Finally, the Whites!" he should be asking himself why he's failing.

Thank you. He assumed an Indian person was a Muslim at one of the town halls. He has lots of PoC issues frankly. And the strategy of PoC just need to learn more is really offensive.
posted by zutalors! at 4:38 PM on March 17, 2016


But as a demographic whole, Clinton is leading among POC.

Carl Beijer has been going on about this for a while.

There wasn't enough time in the south.
posted by Trochanter at 4:38 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think it's disrespectful to only think of minority votes as a statistic without thinking about the interests of those voters.

Who is doing that? I'm just citing those statistics to demonstrate that there are plenty of non-white people who support his message and do think he represents their interests. Re your first point, yes most Democrats in the south generally have great affection for Clinton and think she would represent them best, I wouldn't argue with that at all and have said so myself right here in this thread. I don't think Sanders' poor performance with many PoC groups is a testimony to his shortcomings as much as it is a testament to her strength with those voters.

I'm talking about rhetorically reducing his supporters to just white people when many Latino, Native American, Arab American, and Black voters have also supported him. Just one example from this morning - here's Clay Shirky, who is white, accusing Ben Jealous, the (Black) former chairman of the NAACP, of being racist and saying that Black votes don't matter. I'm just trying to say that people of color I know who do support Sanders have been vocal about how they are hurt and offended by the way their support for him is being erased, and that I just wish people would be a little more careful about how they talk about it. Like I said, I wouldn't come in here saying that Clinton is winning just because of how much old people love her because I think that's disrespectful to the minority of younger voters who do support her. I would be careful in qualifying those claims, that's all.

On preview, schroedinger's comment is exactly what I mean - to compare his campaign to the GOP is just really over the top, is kind of a shitty thing to say about the Black leaders running his outreach, and I think is really dismissive of his strength with Latino, Native American, and Arab American voters. He has made great inroads with Latino and Native American voters and hopes to expand that in western states and hopes to build on that in the Southwest. It's not just about white people.

What I do know is that the rhetoric following SC and the rest of the southern primaries where the African American community was called "low-information" and that the south was "the old confederacy" was not just extremely hurtful but a pants-on-head type of political move by the Sanders camp.

I agree that was super gross and probably cost him a lot. I didn't see any of it coming from the campaign though, I thought that was mostly reddit nonsense. Did I miss something official from them?
posted by dialetheia at 4:41 PM on March 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


Honestly, as much well-meaning and sense the concern that those foreign figures are making, it's complete deaf ears. The American public largely does not care about foreigners think of us, and we double-down when the criticism is sharper and louder. Look at the Bush years. Obama was a slight reprieve, but him being popular overseas just made the right-wing detest and distrust him more. They'd only listen if say, Netanyahu was to criticize Trump.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:41 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


In the end I can tolerate promising the world when you really can't deliver because that's what politicians typically do but the failure to clamp down on the underlying negativity present at lower levels of the campaign (both in regards to race and gender) really depressed me because honestly I felt like Sanders was better than that. However I'm not sure that some of the people around his campaign are better than that.

I don't recall the Sanders campaign going negative. It's been one of his principles.

Are you talking about the actual Sanders campaign or what the knuckleheads on reddit are saying?
posted by Fleebnork at 4:44 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


It does not look good for a purportedly radically progressive candidate to rely on the same race-base strategy as the GOP. First of all, it's racist. Second of all, it's a dumb strategy come the general because he's not going to win without POC on board.

It's not like he's not trying to appeal to minority voters. It's been a focus ever since the BLM protests highlighted some of his issues there. He's making an effort and Clinton is doing a better job. I think that's very different than the explicitly racist GOP southern strategy. If for some reason he ends up the nominee, minority voters aren't going to be running to embrace Trump over him.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:44 PM on March 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


I agree, Sanders would love to do better with PoC. He's just struggling to do it despite his attempts. That's in direct opposition to the GOP which is running on racist rhetoric and racist strategy and is writing off minorities in an attempt to drive up their numbers among racists and people who don't think they are racists but are actually racists.
posted by Justinian at 4:47 PM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


There wasn't enough time in the south.

We already complain that our campaign season (year?) is way too long. And Sanders has been thinking of a presidential run since at least 2012, right? That's four years.

I don't think we can expect people to be convinced that you should be president in a matter of months. It's supposed to take time.
posted by FJT at 4:47 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maybe PoC think there's more to outreach in their communities than talking about civil rights marches in the 60s. Or thinking all PoC are poor.
posted by zutalors! at 4:52 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Can we not do the fighty snark? Please?
posted by Fleebnork at 4:54 PM on March 17, 2016 [14 favorites]




I wonder if Michael Moore thought those states were irrelevant in the 2008 primary. I'm guessing not!
posted by Justinian at 5:00 PM on March 17, 2016


I'm not doing any fighty snark. I'm an actual minority and sharing my opinion about Sanders' clear faults in that area.
posted by zutalors! at 5:00 PM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Turns out Moore is kind of a gasbag, yeah. A lot of people got lionized during the Bush years for standing up to him in the media because they were among the very, very, very few willing to do it in the post-9/11 climate. See also someone like Olbermann. Not normally the sort of person I want to turn to, but beggars can't be choosers.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:02 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


It was definitely most egregious on reddit (r/sfp was better than r/politics for the most part) but I'll be honest I was seeing this sort of stuff all over the progressive blogosphere (Kos, HuffPo, etc) and while it might not of been encouraged by the Sanders campaign there has been plenty of opportunity for the Sanders campaign to put out messaging against it. Combined with the tacit admission that Sanders will focus on states with less diversity and I have to wonder what sort of progressive campaign strategy he's running.

If the model was to recapture the feel of OFA '08 the failure to actively speak to the AA community is a major screw-up and I'm sorry "Uhh we just ran out of time" might be a good excuse for why your term paper is missing citations but it's a crappy excuse for a democratic political campaign.
posted by vuron at 5:04 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Citing Evangelical Faith, Ted Cruz Calls To Ban “Satanic” Tritone

Snopes says False
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:10 PM on March 17, 2016


I'm almost certain I've seen Bernie say "the more minority voters get to know us, the more they like us" and people here have definitely been saying that, repeatedly. It's really the same condescending "low-information" point, just phrased less bluntly.
posted by msalt at 5:11 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's obvious they just realized you need minority votes to win a Presidency. And ignored that lesson from Obama because they felt like they were so much better.
posted by zutalors! at 5:12 PM on March 17, 2016


That's in direct opposition to the GOP which is running on racist rhetoric and racist strategy and is writing off minorities in an attempt to drive up their numbers among racists and people who don't think they are racists but are actually racists.

Interestingly, the GOP used to understand that they need a broader pool voters to be successful in the future. Their so-called "autopsy report" from 2012 is their outline of their issues, and it was remarkably honest for something coming from Republicans:
Public perception of the Party is at record lows. Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the Party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country. When someone rolls their eyes at us, they are not likely to open their ears to us.
Granted, this quote is from a section on messaging, not actual content of platform, but the GOP acknowledges that their prospects for winning future presidencies are on the wane due to public perception.

Maybe PoC think there's more to outreach in their communities than talking about civil rights marches in the 60s.

Maybe some women think there is more to feminism than what Clinton's people like Albright and Steinem think it is. Older candidates may have an older and less relevant take on civil rights than some younger voters. It seems to be a broader issue than one candidate you are writing off.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:12 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie was coming from nowhere. The media and the party did bugger all for him. The Clintons have had decades.
posted by Trochanter at 5:13 PM on March 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


Snopes says False

That it was published on a site known for satire about classical music probably gave it away, yes.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:14 PM on March 17, 2016


responding as a man with what women think to someone who is bringing up the concerns of a group they're part is maybe not the best ever look.
posted by nadawi at 5:18 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm almost certain I've seen Bernie say "the more minority voters get to know us, the more they like us" and people here have definitely been saying that, repeatedly. It's really the same condescending "low-information" point, just phrased less bluntly.

It was my understanding that he has in fact gained in the polls with minority voters as he campaigned for them, is that not the case?

It's obvious they just realized you need minority votes to win a Presidency. And ignored that lesson from Obama because they felt like they were so much better.

I think what the Sanders campaign did not realize was that their economic message was not going to have the universal appeal they expected it to have. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they didn't realize you need to have appeal to minority voters to win a Democratic primary.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:19 PM on March 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


He was running as the democratic nominee for President of the USA. At some point in the exploratory thought process you think he'd go "You know what I better figure out how to appeal to minority voters because they are a central part of the Democratic coalition" but he just didn't do his homework.

So either he was never really running for president and mainly wanted to get his message out in which okay but seriously learn to tailor your message to your audience because a progressive movement that leaves behind minority voters is DOA or he was running for President and he thought he didn't have to do his retail politics homework and that's just lazy politicking and it's really no wonder Clinton has a 350 delegate lead on him.
posted by vuron at 5:20 PM on March 17, 2016


Sanders has done extremely well and exceeded everyone's expectations, even his own. But I think we've said before that if a candidate fails to win, it's their own fault. And similarly if Sanders didn't have enough time to establish an awareness by PoC, let alone a relationship with them, then that is his fault as well.

I can't believe I'm referencing this, but Donald Trump has been wanting to run for president since 1988. I know hindsight is 20/20, but my excuse was in 1988 I was more interested in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles than American politics. Once we win this election, I think there's gonna be a good post-mortem to write about how everyone missed the signs and how we as a society and democracy need to be much better vaccinating ourselves from something like this. And I say that's "if" we win, because if Trump wins anyone that dares to write it will get sued to oblivion.
posted by FJT at 5:21 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Again: nobody is saying Sanders has no POC fans. When I compared him to the GOP, I meant the fact his campaign is now outright depending on the predominance of White voters in the Midwest to recover him. See:
Aides have long said they wanted to survive to this point as a viable candidacy, before heading into a stretch marked by caucuses in largely white states that would enable them to build back momentum against Hillary Clinton.
The "he's struggling because Clinton's so popular" argument is pretty interesting. Why do you think she's popular? Because it's not an accident. For example, she and Bill have been engaging Black voters for years. Politically and personally. It meant a lot to have a presidential candidate who interacted with Black people as easily as he did with White, who didn't get stiff and awkward and a deer-in-the-headlights-look.

Meanwhile, where was Bernie? He marched, ran off to one of the whitest states in the USA, and then . . . nada. He didn't just not reach out--he ignored the needs of the Black people that did live there.

Now he's playing Johnny-Come-Lately. His attempts to catch up have been marked with missteps and condescension. First he tried to spin it back to class and the economy. Then he and his supporters touted that he got arrested a half-century ago. Then they complained that POC didn't know what was good for them. Stuff like the "ghetto" comment keeps happening, there's the insistence that if only POC (specifically Black people) knew more they'd like him, and then a strategy that straight-up relies on White votes. It looks like a campaign that's not so much genuinely interested in the needs of POC as they are in their votes.
posted by Anonymous at 5:28 PM on March 17, 2016


Looks like DWS's challenger for her congress seat has also been denied access to the VAN system by the Democratic Party
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:31 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


lol
posted by Trochanter at 5:34 PM on March 17, 2016



Maybe some women think there is more to feminism than what Clinton's people like Albright and Steinem think it is. Older candidates may have an older and less relevant take on civil rights than some younger voters. It seems to be a broader issue than one candidate you are writing off.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:12 PM


I'm also a woman! Like seriously, people post statistics about minority votes and then when minorities show up to say why the message isn't resonating, the answer is "stop snarking" "oh well you wrote him off" or "we didn't have time to get to your stuff."

Also, posting PoC tweeters doesn't do that much because minorities have been hearing "well one of yours said..." Approximately forever.
posted by zutalors! at 5:34 PM on March 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


"the more minority voters get to know us, the more they like us"

I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but Sanders really had almost no name recognition with Black voters nationally, and that statement is backed up by Carl Beijer's data (linked here previously) that as his name recognition rose, so did his support among Black voters. It's not like the media was super friendly to Sanders even before his run - he had almost no national presence outside of the hard left anyway. I think his success in IA and NH was a big surprise to the campaign, that they got most of their donations following that success, and that it was a race against time from that point on. Sure, it would have been great if he'd been able to do more earlier, but he didn't have money, media, or national presence at that point. I think he tried early on to build bridges with Black Lives Matter by responding to the protests by putting out a great criminal justice platform (still checks more boxes according to Project Zero than any other candidates' platform), hiring activists like Symone Sanders, his press secretary (no relation), getting younger/less establishment Black political leaders like Killer Mike to advocate for him, etc. I honestly don't think he thought he could win until after NH, so he focused more on building bridges with young Black activists, which seems reasonable to me if he's trying to build a young left movement.

Re: that Daily Beast piece, there was a lot of pushback from Black leaders in Vermont about that article that is also worth considering.

I think it's unfair to say his outreach was insultingly dismissive or anything, though, especially given how little time he had after he finally started having some resources - he did a huge HBCU tour, had hundreds of paid Black staffers in South Carolina, spent at least a million on ads there, put out a great criminal justice platform, had serious leaders like Cornel West, Ben Jealous, Nina Turner, Erica Garner, Killer Mike, etc. out there advocating for him, etc. It just didn't work because the majority of Black people liked Clinton better, and that's OK - it reflects her deep history with that community, which is to be commended. Personally, I wish he'd connected his economic message back to foreclosures and closing the Black/white wealth gap - on average, white wealth is still 13x Black wealth, and half of all Black wealth was destroyed in the 2008 crash. Those terrible disparities would have made a good intersectional addition to his economic inequality and Wall Street messages.
posted by dialetheia at 5:38 PM on March 17, 2016 [28 favorites]


Can we not do the fighty snark? Please?

As far as I can tell this was general plea? Not addressed to anyone in particular?

I could be wrong.
posted by yertledaturtle at 5:38 PM on March 17, 2016


Looks like DWS's challenger for her congress seat has also been denied access to the VAN system by the Democratic Party

I don't think it's unreasonable to deny people challenging incumbents.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:41 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


To be honest, I posted that following zutalors! comment because I felt it was an uncharitable and snarky comment, given the outreach I have seen locally, with Killer Mike and Sanders appearing at Morehouse College. That has been decried as "Johnny come lately" so I don't care to argue it further.
posted by Fleebnork at 5:45 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've probably said some tactless stuff myself, so I'll try to own that as much as possible, but I'm certainly not going to apologize or feel guilty because of the behavior some assholes who support the same candidate I do. They don't speak for me.
posted by teponaztli at 5:57 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


And, for the record, I agree that it's horrible and wrong.
posted by Fleebnork at 5:57 PM on March 17, 2016


Yeah, the confederacy thing is pretty horrible (especially given the large percentage of Democratic voters in those states who are black), but its not the Sanders campaign saying that.

Sure.

Just one example from this morning - here's Clay Shirky, who is white, accusing Ben Jealous, the (Black) former chairman of the NAACP, of being racist and saying that Black votes don't matter.

Is Clay Shirky in the Clinton campaign? Let's keep things equal.
posted by OmieWise at 5:58 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


To be honest, I posted that following zutalors! comment because I felt it was an uncharitable and snarky comment, given the outreach I have seen locally, with Killer Mike and Sanders appearing at Morehouse College. That has been decried as "Johnny come lately" so I don't care to argue it further.

It wasn't snarky, and I don't know why it's not OK to criticize Sanders or to need to not be uncharitable to Sanders.

People were posting about minority votes, I have an opinion about that because I am one (it might not be everyone's opinion, but it seems to be the case that Sanders' campaign is not doing well in part because of minority votes) , and you told me to cut it out because Killer Mike.

Also Obama managed to find time to get out the minority vote.
posted by zutalors! at 6:01 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


No, and I didn't say he was or imply that it reflected poorly on the Clinton campaign. It was offered as an example of white people erasing Sanders' support among POC.
posted by dialetheia at 6:01 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maybe some women think there is more to feminism than what Clinton's people like Albright and Steinem think it is. Older candidates may have an older and less relevant take on civil rights than some younger voters. It seems to be a broader issue than one candidate you are writing off.


First, this comment is pretty dismissive of the perspective of older POC voters. Second, Steinem/Albright's blatant intersectional blind spot is due to a lifetime of privilege. Are you saying POC voters are not connecting with Sanders on the race issues due to their lifetime of privilege? Finally, can you show me the polling data that indicates young POC overwhelmingly prefer Sanders? Because the results I can find are much more mixed.

dialetheia, my larger point was not just about what the Sanders campaign was doing now, but what Sanders has been doing for the past 50 years. Hillary Clinton isn't known among more Black voters because she started out with more resources. She's known because she's been engaging with the community for decades. Sanders has not. His lack of recognition isn't just because he's the underdog, it's because he hasn't been there.
posted by Anonymous at 6:02 PM on March 17, 2016


Mod note: Folks, this *really really* needs to not be about your fellow posters. I don't know how to make that clearer.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:05 PM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Looks like DWS's challenger for her congress seat has also been denied access to the VAN system by the Democratic Party

I don't think it's unreasonable to deny people challenging incumbents.


I guess if them's the rules, them's the rules; but, is it right? I mean, the challenger is a party member, too...

I haven't really thought about it. It looks weird on its face.
posted by Trochanter at 6:06 PM on March 17, 2016


Also Obama managed to find time to get out the minority vote.

Yeah, and when he was doing that in the 2008 primary it was Clinton who was running hard for whiter states and making racist sounding foot in mouth gaffes. I kind of think a lot of lessons learned there have helped her big time this time around.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:08 PM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah, but I'm not talking about Clinton in 2008. I'm talking about the idea that Sanders in 2016 didn't have time to get out the minority vote.
posted by zutalors! at 6:13 PM on March 17, 2016


(And as I've said before, it's a shame Sanders probably doesn't have another run in him. He could do a lot better in a second shot starting with more name recognition and understanding of what it takes to have broad national appeal across demographics. Country really wasn't ready for a socialist run in the past though so I understand why he waited so long. Hopefully the next person who tries to challenge the establishment from the left will have a bit more polish and name recognition when it's their time to shine.)
posted by Drinky Die at 6:14 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Maybe if he finds time I'll reconsider in 2020. Not snark btw, I'm serious.
posted by zutalors! at 6:14 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


What's interesting is that Sanders definitely seems to dominate rural districts even though his messaging doesn't seem to be particular directed at rural interests.

I think this was the original comment (today) that opened discussion with respect to Sanders' popularity in rural areas. I may have missed earlier comments in this vein so if so, apologies.

Comments related to this topic have tended to focus on race, with the exception of Miko's comment about the Midwest being a hotbed of socialism.

It's not so much the socialism as it is the populism. Rural areas have been among the most active and consistent anti-bank (and finance) constituencies for the last 150 years. Now would be a very good time to take on some side reading about the populist movement that originated in the 1870s. Not only is it fascinating history in itself, it's instructive. Socialism, particularly of the LaSalle/Debs flavor is one outgrowth of populism. Another wing provided a lot of support for WJ Bryan's version of populism, which was not so socialist. But but were attractive draws to rural folks.

Something worth noting here, too, is that Sanders comes from the other side of the recent reshaping of the Democratic coalition that occurred after 1972. Whoever cited Chomsky describing Sanders as a New Dealer hits the nail on the head. The legacy of the New Deal was primarily about economics so it is no accident that Sanders, who was shaped by this legacy, tends to be more focused on the economic side of the political process. Still, there is ample evidence that it wasn't his only concern.

So, I think it is true that Sanders' emphasis on economic issues leaves him open to some criticism with respect to building bridges to the new, post-1972, coalition of the Democratic party, including minorities.

However, those who go a little too far in criticizing his level of outreach tend to be those who came to maturity during this period of the newer Democratic coalition. Obviously, the prism through which we view the world shapes our values.

I've said this before and I'll mention it again now. It behooves all of us to try to understand what motivates people, especially those with whom we find disagreement. There's been a lot of snark tonight, let let me add a bit of my own. Sometimes it's useful to turn off the computer and pick up a book or two. Or at least read a book or two on the computer. relying on what passes for journalism on the net today tends to lead to superficiality in some instances.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:16 PM on March 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


Hopefully the next person who tries to challenge the establishment from the left will have a bit more polish and name recognition when it's their time to shine

I think we have plenty of possibilities honestly that could be better than Sanders.
posted by zutalors! at 6:17 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


No 2020 for Clinton - if she doesn't win against Trump as "electability" candidate then she is dead politically.

(Plus also the nation will be a smoking ruin.)
posted by Artw at 6:18 PM on March 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


Here are two polls indicating that while the gap is smaller, Clinton is still more popular among young Black voters.

No matter who he is hiring to his campaign and what he is posting on his website, at a fundamental level his primary appeal is among White voters, specifically younger White voters. In the context of a strategy that targets these voters for delegates, it raises serious questions about how much he actually understands about the POC with whom he's trying to connect.

Another thought: the argument is that POC just don't know who Sanders is. The flipside to this is that White people do--and how does that happen? How do White people just somehow disproportionately know about Sanders? What does that say about his outreach?
posted by Anonymous at 6:19 PM on March 17, 2016


Another thought: the argument is that POC just don't know who Sanders is. The flipside to this is that White people do--and how does that happen? How do White people just somehow disproportionately know about Sanders? What does that say about his outreach?

Just gonna say for those who know some logic: Neither necessary nor sufficient.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:29 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: Guys, the metaconversation here needs to stop. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:30 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie Sanders ‏@SenSanders 2m2 minutes ago

Boeing pays no taxes. Verizon gets a refund. Pfizer stashes their money abroad. It is high time we ask these groups to pay their fair share.


I mean, what's not to love?
posted by Trochanter at 6:32 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hopefully the next person who tries to challenge the establishment from the left will have a bit more polish and name recognition when it's their time to shine

This is actually an important undercurrent to this whole discussion. Many of the (legitimate) criticisms of Clinton have to do with the fact that she has a record, and that she has been running for the office of President since (in my opinion) she was First Lady. This ends up having a big effect. There are votes that she made that can be legitimately critiqued, that were wrong, that were indefensible in today's social climate, that were taken with an eye to the national stage. I have seen nothing at all that makes me think that Sanders was having to make those kinds of calculations.

You can see this, actually, playing out also in the GOP contest this year, which was filled with 1st term Senators. I think there is a real sense among politicians that the dirty business (read necessary compromises) of legislating only harms a campaign. Voters demand purity and object to decisions or compromises that might detract from that purity. This, I would submit, is a very bad precedent.

Part of what makes Sanders an attractive candidate is that he was elected to the Senate by a homogenous state where his support was solid. He was able to take positions on principle that were not open to people with more mixed constituencies, or people who had their eyes on National office. I'm not criticizing Sanders here, but he had it easy in terms of appeasing multiple constituencies. I'm not sure he would be the attractive candidate he is had be been the Senator from, say, New York.
posted by OmieWise at 6:33 PM on March 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


What I do know is that the rhetoric following SC and the rest of the southern primaries where the African American community was called "low-information" and that the south was "the old confederacy" was not just extremely hurtful but a pants-on-head type of political move by the Sanders camp.

I agree that was super gross and probably cost him a lot. I didn't see any of it coming from the campaign though, I thought that was mostly reddit nonsense. Did I miss something official from them?


I think that this is an election in which social media and informal dissemination of information and commentary via (among others) Reddit is playing a larger role than in previous elections - I mean Obama's campaigns were very, very good at social media but it was much more directed and controlled formally. I feel like this election is different - a great many more potential voters are seeing anger and criticism of their chosen candidate blasted directly at them via Twitter, or postings on r/politics, or on Facebook by private, unaffiliated individuals or small groups - and their feelings about that then carry over onto the formal campaigns.

This is affecting both campaigns, but I feel like Sanders, who is more dependent on that penumbra of enthusiastic voluntary allies to support his committed and professional (but relatively small) formal campaign infrastructure, is more easily hurt as well as helped by this.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:35 PM on March 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


No matter who he is hiring to his campaign and what he is posting on his website, at a fundamental level his primary appeal is among White voters, specifically younger White voters. In the context of a strategy that targets these voters for delegates, it raises serious questions about how much he actually understands about the POC with whom he's trying to connect.

I hear what you're saying, but I think the issue of outreach is separate from his understanding of the issues affecting people of color. He's hired great people and has really evolved a lot on issues related to race (which is either a credit or a detriment depending on your POV). But the issues themselves are separate from the outreach, and I think the latter is a lot weaker. The campaign is still pretty small, and I think maybe there's been an overemphasis on grassroots models that leave people out of the picture in key ways. I'm not super familiar with the strategizing aspect of things - shoot, maybe that's their problem too, an overemphasis on the issues speaking for themselves, or something. All I know is that on the level of policy it's great, but I worry that everyone thinks good policy should automatically translate into support from the people affected.
posted by teponaztli at 6:44 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


"While Mrs. Clinton swept the five major primaries on Tuesday, she lost white men in all of them, and by double-digit margins in Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, exit polls showed — a sharp turnabout from 2008, when she won double-digit victories among white male voters in all three states."
via - As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men [NYT]

Of course people of all races can be found voting for one candidate or another (hell, I've read interviews of Muslims saying they're gonna vote Trump!), but it's clear that there are broad demographic trends that can be found in the supporter blocs of Clinton & Sanders.
posted by modernnomad at 6:47 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


I hear what you're saying, but I think the issue of outreach is separate from his understanding of the issues affecting people of color. He's hired great people and has really evolved a lot on issues related to race

I think it's notable both that Sanders did not start "hiring" POC prior to being called out on it, and that the kinds of evolution people are being asked to credit once he did is not granted to Clinton on other issues. It's almost as if the argument is that Sanders' faults are correctable, but Clinton's are fundamental to her character. I'm not sure how that's defensible, especially when Sanders is a White man and Clinton is a White woman. It seems structurally sexist to me.
posted by OmieWise at 6:55 PM on March 17, 2016 [20 favorites]


It's almost as if the argument is that Sanders' faults are correctable, but Clinton's are fundamental to her character. I'm not sure how that's defensible, especially when Sanders is a White man and Clinton is a White woman. It seems structurally sexist to me.

So much word. Also that things Hillary has been working on for a long time, like equal pay, is "Bernie stuff."
posted by zutalors! at 6:59 PM on March 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


OK, but I'm not even comparing him to Clinton here, and I even said his evolution was either a credit or a fault depending on our POV. I'm just saying that I think his policies on this are great, and I'm trying to engage with why that message might not be reaching people.
posted by teponaztli at 7:03 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


in my opinion, it's because it feels perfunctory and tacked on.
posted by zutalors! at 7:05 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm just saying that I think his policies on this are great, and I'm trying to engage with why that message might not be reaching people.

Ok, but his policies are only "great" if you ascribe to him the ability to change and ascribe to that ability some fundamental importance. It's hard for me to read those ascriptions either neutrally or as without reference to Clinton in a thread like this. I think to make an non-disingenuous argument about something like this at this point you've got to account for the whole picture of the discourse community in which you are commenting.
posted by OmieWise at 7:14 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


At least when discussing vote share, to a large degree it's all relative. Clinton did poorly with the black vote in 2008, and well in 2016. It's not like she's a different person now, it's just that her standing with that community is better than Sanders and worse than Obama. But in itself, those percentages no more mean that Sanders has a fundamental or irreparable problem with those voters than it did for Clinton in 2008. Nor did the fact that Clinton did better with women in 2008 show that Obama had a fundamental woman problem, nor does the fact that Sanders does better with the young show that Clinton has a fundamental youth problem. It just means that those candidates have done a better job with those groups at those times, and all of that changes over time and depending on who the alternatives are. This isn't to say that there isn't other evidence to martial about policy, staffing, or strategy errors; just that the vote percentages by themselves are only relative and not particularly dispositive about fundamentals.

No one thought Sanders would do nearly as well as he did, least of all I think him, so the groundwork needed to reach beyond his strictly economic message was not begun nearly long enough ago. It's possible that had he been running against a weaker candidate than Clinton, eg another centrist white male Democrat, Sanders's message may have had the upper hand with various demographic groups that Clinton is now winning. But that also doesn't mean that Sanders's narrowly economic message wasn't deeply flawed in ignoring many other key dimensions of modern politics. One of the great upsides of his campaign is not just that millions of Democrats have had their horizons expanded about just how far left the party is ready to go, but also the left has learned that next time around, they better be ready with a leftist who is far more diverse and intersectional, especially as the young continue to drive the party farther and farther leftward.
posted by chortly at 7:14 PM on March 17, 2016 [20 favorites]


"It's not so much the socialism as it is the populism. Rural areas have been among the most active and consistent anti-bank (and finance) constituencies for the last 150 years."

Miko is correct of course but an example of your thesis is Jim Weaver. (Linking seems fouled, but just goggle him) The socialists excoriated Weaver for his eventual return to the Democratic Party. He also sought social justice for African Americans.
James Oneals' pamphlet: Farmers! Your enemy is Capitalism is a great example of the SPA addressing a big issue at that time, farming, capital and both parties failure to address concerns.
It is also of note that no dem or republican wanted anything to do with socialism and expect to win office. Henry Ford might be an exception as one obstacle to Unionizing was that there were literally nothing to protest about. Not wages not working conditions. The goons came later. Ford was foisted to run for senator by republicans and Dems, without asking. But his war comments sunk that and ironically, he ran the election cycle.
posted by clavdivs at 7:15 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


What about all the money she takes from bodies that have a strong interest in how she's going to govern -- in which people she's going to appoint to watch over them and hold them to account? Forget the past, isn't that a fundamental, ongoing issue?

She takes a lot of money from those people.
posted by Trochanter at 7:15 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why Trump - George Lakoff
Excellent read courtesy of iamkimiam's twitter feed
posted by madamjujujive at 7:16 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


At least when discussing vote share, to a large degree it's all relative

Yes, much of the rural white vote went to Clinton over Obama in 2008, right? And now its going to Sanders? They preferred Clinton to Obama, but Sanders to Clinton. Just like many PoC preferred Obama to Clinton, but Clinton to Sanders.

But if you look at the high favorability ratings in the Democratic Party for both Sanders and Clinton, it's not clear that either politician is "losing" voters so much as just not being the first choice.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:20 PM on March 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


(Took me a while to find it, and this is a few weeks old, but here is the most recent ratings I could find for the candidates among Democratic voters. Both Clinton and Sanders have huge net favorable ratings among Democrats).
posted by thefoxgod at 7:29 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


The guy who was in the 1964 "Confessions of a Republican" ad for Johnson is on CNN right now saying the current Republicans are even worse than Goldwater.
posted by zutalors! at 7:35 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


When these demographic divides are drawn sharply across race and gender in an overall political climate that has been heavily focused on issues of race and gender, it seems disingenuous to dismiss them as "simply relative". Everything's relative. But relative differences don't happen accidentally, especially if the gaps are huge. It means certain demographics feel one candidate is relating to them in a way that the other is not. I think it is worthwhile to consider why that is.
posted by Anonymous at 7:35 PM on March 17, 2016


But that also doesn't mean that Sanders's narrowly economic message wasn't deeply flawed in ignoring many other key dimensions of modern politics. One of the great upsides of his campaign is not just that millions of Democrats have had their horizons expanded about just how far left the party is ready to go, but also the left has learned that next time around, they better be ready with a leftist who is far more diverse and intersectional, especially as the young continue to drive the party farther and farther leftward.

Great comment. Only I'd add that Sanders economic message is narrow in the sense that he has been good at "message discipline." And I think that hurts him. I suspect that if you were to ask him, he'd say that economic issues are really a broad-based appeal that crosses (dare I say!) 99% of the electorate. That's a tough sell because it relies on folks having a deeper understanding of economics than is probably the case.

I think that a re-calibration of the modern Democratic coalition is coming. Young folks are more negatively impacted by economic issues than previous generations. So I believe that any adjustments to the current coalition will require a decidedly more leftist perspective on economics than is presently the case. So the trick will be in incorporating the best of the modern coalition with somewhat more emphasis on the economy. Keep the baby and the bathwater, so to speak.

I think the general election will be closer than some of my friends think. And part of that is because Trump does have some legitimate appeal on economic issues with his supporters. If the Dem party is smart, they'll work hard to scoop up some of the folks on the other side who are motivated mostly by economic issues. It probably won't happen before the election, but we can start the wheels turning between now and the next mid-term.
posted by CincyBlues at 7:50 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think the reality is that most democrats would be happy with either Sanders or Clinton it's just that given a choice between the two the current "favorite" tends to be Clinton on aggregate.

It's not that White Men won't vote for Clinton (well Democratic Men at least) but there seems to be a preference especially among millenial white males for Sanders economic populism. I think a lot of that stems from the jobless recovery and the difficulty that many millenials (especially millenial males) are having in finding meaningful employment. To a certain degree the Sanders message is appealing especially if you job prospects suck and you are burdened with enormous college loan debt.

Clinton seems to be appealing more broadly to women (albeit she shows some weakness among millenial females) and minority voters. The appeal for women is complex but at least for some women it can be as simple as "It's finally time". The appeal for minority voters is also complex and there have been numerous examples of how Hillary's ties to minority communities, her ability to speak a shared language of faith, etc have all engendered a level of trust among minority voters.

I think there is also a tendency among some minority populations to get a little nervous about talk of "revolution" as revolutionary populism hasn't always had he best record in terms of protecting the rights of minorities. Combined with the implicit and explicit endorsement of Obama's policies by Clinton (for better or for worse) and I think you can understand why the has been some reticence to sign on to a revolution that seems to be struggling through the birthing process.

More than anything else I think Democrats are beginning to see that while there are some substantive differences between Clinton and Sanders than result in distinct preferences between the two those differences are miniscule in comparison to the differences between either Democrat and Herr Trump's neo-fascist authoritarianism.

That's why I'm so frustrated with the idea being promoted among some that Sanders supporters can't budge from ideological purity to deign to vote for Clinton when a) I don't really think that is accurate for most Sanders supporters and b) at the end of the day both candidates seem to support similar goals if not the means to achieve those goals.
posted by vuron at 7:50 PM on March 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


I think it is worthwhile to consider why that is.

It absolutely is, but its also possible to read it as "demographic A doesn't like candidate X" when that may not be at all true. Candidate Y is their preferred candidate, and its good/useful/interesting to know why. But often the tone shifts to why they have a negative view of candidate X, which is not necessarily the case.

Also, its important to know if that IS the case. For example, is Clinton simply preferred to Sanders by many PoC? Or do they actually dislike Sanders? The latter is far more troubling for the general than the former, but who voted for who in the primary doesn't tell us the difference. Things like "happiness with candidate X as nominee" and favorability can help distinguish.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:51 PM on March 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


Like, on the Republican side there seems to be large groups that really don't like the other candidates. Both Trump and Cruz have huge negative ratings even inside their party. That suggests they are truly fractured and may be an issue in the general. Its not just that people prefer Trump over Cruz or vice versa, its that they only like one of the two.

But the data on the Democratic side indicates thats not happening at all in that race. There are preferences, and those preferences tell us some things about the messages each candidate is pushing, but overall unity on the Democratic side will be much much easier than unity on the Republican side.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:55 PM on March 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


James Weaver is an excellent example of my thesis that populism is prior to socialism in this period. Also, we'd have to factor in a major economic issue of the time: How much money should be in circulation? The Specie Resumption Act in the 1970s through the later gold/silver disputes of the 1890s are a thread which helps us understand just why rural farmers were so active and organized. Gotta have some credit in the spring to get the crop planted; gotta have some money after harvest to pay off the debts accrued and to also get through the winter.

Also, I should add something I didn't mention before. While the populist movement was primarily an economic movement, it is also (shamefully) true that racism played a role. There were some separate black populist organizations but bridges with larger, white populist organizations were often tenuous at best and sometimes nonexistent.

On a side note, my favorite pinko of that general period was Joseph Wedemeyer. He was a Marxist, and hence mostly focused on the industrial economy and not the rural economy. Sadly, he also died just after the Civil War and so predates the later turbulence on both the labor side and the populist side. Honorable fellow, he was.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:03 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think the general election will be closer than some of my friends think. And part of that is because Trump does have some legitimate appeal on economic issues with his supporters.

Honestly? Trump needs to do a lot more than offer some legitimate appeal to his supporters - he has to offer significant appeal to a great many people who aren't supporting him in the primary - moderate Republicans, Independents and (if he wants to beat Clinton) white working-class Democrats. And he's going to have to do that with ambiguous/little support from the party apparatus, incumbent Republicans and even the billionaire mega-backers (many of whom find him deeply unappealing due to his economic populism, among other things).

Whoever the Democratic candidate ends up being, they have the firm pledge of support from their present opponent and, presumably, will have at least two previous Democratic presidents (Obama and Bill Clinton) stumping for them, as well as the prospect of facing probably the most genuinely frightening Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater. I don't see a run against Trump as particularly close as long as the Democrats hang together. And at this point I think everyone, even Kasich for all his Hail Mary talk, knows it is going to be Trump.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:10 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm surprised Obama seems to be nervous about it, because I see Trump crashing and burning in the general. i think it'll be over before it's over, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. And if Bernie drops out it'll be Trump 24/7 on the news, or hell 28/7 because I dont know how there could be any more.
posted by zutalors! at 8:19 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm surprised Obama seems to be nervous about it, because I see Trump crashing and burning in the general. i think it'll be over before it's over, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.

Let's be honest. Trump even making it this far isn't that great for America's "brand" - I'm sure Putin calls Obama up on the red phone just to twit him about it on a fairly regular basis.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:21 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


And [Trump's] going to have to do that with ambiguous/little support from...the billionaire mega-backers (many of whom find him deeply unappealing due to his economic populism, among other things).

I would love to hear more about this because as far as I can tell the predominant concerns of the Koch Brothers and their ilk are 1. lower taxes and 2. fewer environmental regulations -- and so far he hasn't said anything to displease them on either of those fronts.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 8:23 PM on March 17, 2016


Let's be honest. Trump even making it this far isn't that great for America's "brand" - I'm sure Putin calls Obama up on the red phone just to twit him about it on a fairly regular basis.


true.
posted by zutalors! at 8:23 PM on March 17, 2016


Honestly?

Yep. I know a lot of blue collar types who hate Clinton and do not Feel the Bern. They do, however feel an economic pinch. They aren't stupid, so they know that Repub economic policy over the years has not been in their favor. So they default to Trump, who gives the appearance of being different on economics. I try to sway them away from Trump but many of them will not budge.

Anyhow, we'll see come November.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:24 PM on March 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


In totally non-Democrat-related news, Lindsey Graham's endorsement of Cruz has me thinking about the implosion of the GOP with a lot more pity than I ever expected. It's like watching the legless zombie of an asshole neighbor slowly pull itself towards you. It is an instinct-driven monster whose only goal is to eat your brain. When it was an actual person it wasn't much better. And yet, as you watch it struggle across the grass, you find the disgust accompanied by no small measure of pity. What happened to the living, breathing person that used to occupy that corpse? What happened to those hopes and dreams? Gone, replaced by a weak, rotting husk driven by naught but hunger and malice. It remains dangerous and it will tear you apart if it catches you--but the threat is laughably easy to avoid. Killing it isn't so much a defense of your life as an act of mercy. The poor thing.
posted by Anonymous at 8:25 PM on March 17, 2016


I was watching Lindsey Graham question Sotomayor for her confirmation on CSPAN ( I know, I was watching 7 year old CSPAN) and he said he was terrified of her basically. He told her that! And he voted to confirm! He is such a weird cat, I almost like him.
posted by zutalors! at 8:30 PM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


How Chicago Democrats Voted in the 2016 Presidential Primary (ward- and precinct-level maps).
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:35 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


He is such a weird cat, I almost like him.

John Oliver's recent piece on Apple vs. the FBI includes a section where (spoiler) Graham admits he was previously wrong and his position has changed. It was refreshing in a way I found to be borderline charming.

Of course, when that kind of flipflop is about endorsing Ted Cruz it's a little harder to be borderline charmed...
posted by pocketfullofrye at 8:35 PM on March 17, 2016


Heh, my precinct went 71% Sanders.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:38 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


John Oliver's recent piece on Apple vs. the FBI includes a section where (spoiler) Graham admits he was previously wrong and his position has changed. It was refreshing in a way I found to be borderline charming.

I know, I saw that.
posted by zutalors! at 8:39 PM on March 17, 2016


Graham admits he was previously wrong

Since his Press Club speech, I've wondered if a blood clot came loose.
posted by Miko at 8:42 PM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I would love to hear more about this

Just to get you started:

The Koch Brothers Have a Donald Trump Problem (Mother Jones, Feb. 2016)
Charles Koch on Donald Trump (Interview Jan. 2016)
Can the Koch Brothers Stop Trump? (Vanity Fair, Feb. 2016)*
Koch Brothers Network Ready to Oppose Trump (The Hill, Feb. 2016

*A month and a half later, the answer seems to be a decisive no.

There was a spate of commentary around this back at the beginning of February, the news cycle seems to have moved on, but I haven't seen much solid evidence to show that they're shifting their views. And for good reason - Trump's economic populism, he attraction to authoritarian immigration solutions (not traditionally a free market position, which likes labor market flexibility), and his Caesarist persona are all pretty unattractive. The Kochs know that he doesn't fear or even particularly respect them, and that he has been running, at least rhetorically, against people like them - the super-wealthy corrupting the political process. Even if Trump is hypocritical on that score, just by talking about them he's drawing the attention of the average citizen to that shadowed element of American politics, and they don't like that at all.

On a darker note - you have to remember that the Koch brothers have been working hard for more than thirty years to build their financial power and political influence. These guys can afford to lose a presidential election cycle (most of the articles I've read point out that they'll still be funding downstream races for governorships and Congressional seats, too). It's not going to break them to let Trump stand and lose, or even help him along towards losing, the general election. These guys funded Romney in 2012 to the the tune of hundreds of millions and then shrugged off the loss and went right on planning for this election. Having done that once, they surely know that they can maintain for another four years under Hillary and then, hopefully, having helped re-establish some sort of party discipline, smash their way back into the White House in 2020. The Kochs, and other, less well-publicized wealthy donors, are very well established in the American political landscape and can play the sort of long game that popular movements of the Right and Left have to struggle hard to achieve.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:42 PM on March 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Heh, my precinct went 71% Sanders.

Yard signs don't vote, eh?
posted by Trochanter at 8:42 PM on March 17, 2016


How Chicago Democrats Voted in the 2016 Presidential Primary (ward- and precinct-level maps).

Super interesting! That's nice GIS work, too. Looks like Sanders won all but two of the Hispanic-plurality wards, which coincide largely with districts that voted to Chuy Garcia in the runoff against Rahm Emanuel. Garcia endorsed and campaigned for Sanders - looks like that was a valuable endorsement.
posted by dialetheia at 8:57 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Honestly? Trump needs to do a lot more than offer some legitimate appeal to his supporters - he has to offer significant appeal to a great many people who aren't supporting him in the primary - moderate Republicans, Independents and (if he wants to beat Clinton) white working-class Democrats...

Guy's gonna moderate hard towards centrism upon winning the nomination. He has straight-up announced this.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:19 PM on March 17, 2016


I know but then what's going to happen with the trump fans? He's not going to have all those crazy televised rallies. He can't be everywhere at once. I know everyone thought he was going to implode and he didn't, but that's because the Republicans are so weak. Both Democrats are much stronger. Much.
posted by zutalors! at 9:24 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


All of this is beginning to sound so familiar. "Bush? The cheerleader? He'll never make it to the convention... er, he'll never get the nom.... um, he'll never win the general.... uh, he'll never get re-elected."

All I'm saying is: Nobody ever went broke misunderestimating the intelligence of the American people.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:27 PM on March 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


"Lol I was just kidding about throwing out all the Muslims and Latinos guys, I mean you blacks still like me don't you?"

It's kinda hard to pivot back from race-baiting when you haven't even been careful enough to use the dog-whistles. He's already given the Super PACs years worth of cringey racist and douchebaggery shit to work with.

Plus he's got his own nativist and white nationalist fan base as a anchor around his neck. I mean how hard is it going to be to dig up some real dirt especially if protestors keep agitating his band of brownshirts into displays of violence. Hopefully people don't get seriously hurt in the process but it's pretty clear that Trump rallies could easily turn into a riot and it doesn't take too many of those for Republican voters to go "OMG I better vote for Hillary"
posted by vuron at 9:33 PM on March 17, 2016


I'm interested to see what a Trump v. Clinton debate would look like. Obviously she would destroy him on policy, but presentation is what people pay attention to. On the one hand, Trump's off-the-cuff, nutballs style could rattle her composure and carefully crafted responses. On the other hand, Trump goes apoplectic when questioned by a woman. If she laughs in his face he might literally explode on stage.
posted by Anonymous at 9:34 PM on March 17, 2016


Trump looked weakest in the debates when he was attacked by Megyn Kelly or Carly Fiorina, neither of which have anywhere near the stature that Clinton has.

Plus GE debate formats tend to be a lot less open to the free-wheeling style of "debating" that Trump is used to. He'll try to talk over her constantly and it's unlikely that she'll actually surrender the floor to him because let's be honest she's gotten a bit tired with dealing with misogynist douchebags.
posted by vuron at 9:39 PM on March 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yeah. Trump really seems to feed off the audience energy, both positive and negative, at debates. I don't know how well he will do with the more formal style of the general debates where the audience is asked to hold their applause and generally not react.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:41 PM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I hear you entropicamericana, but it's not 2000 or 04 and I think things have changed. The party was united behind bush in a way that they completely are not behind trump.

Not trying to be too confident but I do believe in sanders and Clinton to pack him off handily.
posted by zutalors! at 9:42 PM on March 17, 2016


I was going to make a reference to JEB!'s po-faced "please clap" but then I just got really sad. Poor JEB!
posted by Justinian at 9:42 PM on March 17, 2016


Looks like Sanders won all but two of the Hispanic-plurality wards, which coincide largely with districts that voted to Chuy Garcia in the runoff against Rahm Emanuel.

Yes. Sanders's coalition very nearly matched Chuy's map (the Latino enclaves on the Northwest and Southwest sides) and added to it the white working-class and middle-class areas of the far Northwest and North sides. Clinton held Rahm's affluent lakefront neighborhoods in the Loop and north along Lake Michigan as well as the majority-black areas on the West and South sides.

The island of green on the South Side by the lake is Hyde Park (University of Chicago). If you want to know where the berniebros are, I'd head there and to the 40% (!) of Loop yuppies who apparently voted for the Senator.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:43 PM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


All of this is beginning to sound so familiar. "Bush? The cheerleader? He'll never make it to the convention... er, he'll never get the nom.... um, he'll never win the general.... uh, he'll never get re-elected."

Who was saying that about Bush? He was the governor of Texas, had deep tires within the Republican party, and was the prohibitive favorite in the primary. Not really similar to Trump's candidacy in any way
posted by parallellines at 10:28 PM on March 17, 2016 [7 favorites]




I think Clinton will (barring a massive and hopefully hilarious deTrumpification come convention time, or a Sanders Resurgent before the Dem one) utterly humiliate and gruesomely eviscerate Trump in the debates. I think he'll turn red, freak out, and piss his goddamned pants. I can't wait. People will be feeling sorry for the giant evil yam bastard.

I have a feeling that much as I love Bernie Sanders, that he might actually be less effective against the monster idiot id machine in a debate, and would falter under the schoolyard insults and incoherent bluster that Trump would doubtless sling, just because he's such a straight arrow. Maybe not, and I'd be happy to see him have a go at Donny, too.

Either way, once Trump and his sleeve-worn insecurities come up against an actual talented political antagonist, I reckon he's going to fall apart. The great worry is, of course, that by then he may have built such a massive following of idiots and assholes that it may not matter.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:01 AM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


The ultimate question in the 2016 election has emerged: just how many idiots and assholes are there in America, anyway?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:06 AM on March 18, 2016 [12 favorites]


What Bernie Sanders Has Achieved: It’s too early to say what Sanders’s legacy will be, but he has already done more than just pull Hillary Clinton to the left.

He's done one thing that I'll bet $1000 any of the other candidates has and will never, ever do: Immediately reach out with empathy and concern for someone who fell ill, without expecting anything in return.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:13 AM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


What about all the money she takes from bodies that have a strong interest in how she's going to govern -- in which people she's going to appoint to watch over them and hold them to account? Forget the past, isn't that a fundamental, ongoing issue?

This is Bernie's most bullshit argument, and the proof that he's not "taking the high road."

Sure, donations exert indirect pressure, and every politician including Bernie has to wrestle with it. (EG him at the big donor DSCC dinners he helped organize.) No one sells their votes directly. Everyone feels some pressure, including Bernie (hence his gun control, support for the F35, and arguably his free college and national health care proposals. Pandering to small donors is still pandering.) Cf Jesse Unruh.

I don't think Bernie even believes it, because he's a 26 year congressperson. If he does though, and he's right, then by his own logic he'll be completely ineffective in Congress because every single other congressperson is "bought and sold," "corrupt," whatever. Nothing will get done, or could ever get done. Why would Big Oil and Wall Street allow their minions to approve any of his Supreme Court nominations?

It's cheap demagoguery, and it's exactly why Bernie won't help down ballot races -- he's already told his supporters that Congress is worthless and corrupt so what's the point of them volutneering or donating? Bernie is apparently the only honest man in America, so if he loses stay home.
posted by msalt at 1:02 AM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Pandering to small donors is still pandering.

Oh, come on dude. I'll give you the F-35 and the gun control (even though it could reasonably be argued that is pandering to Vermont voters, not the NRA) but pandering to small donors is not the same thing as pandering to the people who destroyed the US economy and escaped with no serious punishment, just further enrichment.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:57 AM on March 18, 2016 [22 favorites]


You know the story in the bible about the woman who gives a little bit out of what she can't afford to charity being more righteous than a rich man who gives of what he can? Yeah, that, but the political version. When someone is being crushed under college debt and they give a little to someone offering a solution, that's not the same as a donation from the richest people on the planet donating to make sure they stay the richest people on the planet.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:00 AM on March 18, 2016 [28 favorites]


Bernie Sanders Clearly In Pocket Of High-Rolling Teacher Who Donated $300 To His Campaign : “He might have the reputation of being the people’s candidate, but when your candidacy is effectively bankrolled by the multi-hundred-dollar donation of a fourth-grade teacher, it’s clear who’s really pulling the strings,” said political analyst Peter Mathews, who noted that when a check arrives with a handwritten note that says “Behind you 100 percent, Bernie!” it comes with certain expectations. “He’s already spouting off talking points about supporting unions and increasing funding for education. Where do you think he got those ideas? He might think he’s not influenced by that money, but when someone has deep enough pockets to drop $300, you pick up the phone when they call.”
posted by dialetheia at 2:30 AM on March 18, 2016 [31 favorites]


Yeah, when you respond to or seek out thousands of small donors that's inherently more democratic than doing the same for one big donor. The small donations correlate pretty directly with votes, while the single large donation seems much more like buying influence disproportionate to the donor's single vote.
posted by bardophile at 3:19 AM on March 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


To be fair though, at least Clinton does leverage her resources into running a campaign that has earned the votes she needs.

All told, GOP donors have spent more than $200 million on super PACs supporting candidates who are out of the race. That money bought essentially nothing.

posted by Drinky Die at 3:24 AM on March 18, 2016


It's cheap demagoguery, and it's exactly why Bernie won't help down ballot races...

Meet the Sandernistas Running for Congress
posted by CincyBlues at 4:21 AM on March 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


Sure, donations exert indirect pressure, and every politician including Bernie has to wrestle with it. (EG him at the big donor DSCC dinners he helped organize.)

This is blatantly dishonest, and you should cut it out. The money from those "big donor DSCC dinners" did not go to the Sanders campaign and you know it. That money would not influence Sanders in anything like the way corporate donations directly to a candidate would.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:32 AM on March 18, 2016 [14 favorites]


We all have to still be part of the same community once this year and its madness is over.
posted by infini at 5:13 AM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Who was saying that about Bush? He was the governor of Texas, had deep tires within the Republican party, and was the prohibitive favorite in the primary. Not really similar to Trump's candidacy in any way

My point is that it is similar in how the Dems thought an articulate, triangulating policy wonk was going mop the stage with ignorant and pandering little demagogue, and we all know how that turned out.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:19 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I do wonder how you approach a debate with Trump. Do you just talk over his head on policy?

Would it work if you spent the whole time just giving him a geography quiz?
posted by Trochanter at 5:47 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I do wonder how you approach a debate with Trump. Do you just talk over his head on policy?

The one thing we learned from the Megyn Kelly thing is Trump really, really hates being questioned by a woman. It drives him nuts. Can you imagine if a woman laughed at him during a debate? He'll lose his shit.
posted by bluecore at 6:01 AM on March 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yeah, I do wonder how you approach a debate with Trump. Do you just talk over his head on policy?

Press him on specifics, then, when he can't provide them, emphasize that he is not a serious candidate. Make at least one reference to professional wrestling. Make him a joke. To prep, watch that Obama roast clip over and over.
posted by box at 6:04 AM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think the reason Gore the intellectual against Bush the populist didn't work as well because Bush stayed calm and steady against Gore, so his eyerolling (which was blatant) just seemed like elitism against a perfectly good guy who just didn't know all the fancy words.

If it's Hillary, she'll be the calm one and as long as she can avoid the eyerolling, which Democrats will love and everyone else hate, Trump will just bluster and bully to seemingly no one.
posted by zutalors! at 6:20 AM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Complacency is very dangerous. The Democrats would have the upper hand against the Republicans, if Trump is the nominee, but he could win.

That said, the Obama roast was magnificent, and I would very, very much liked to have seen an Obama/Trump debate. Making Trump a joke is likely an effective tactic in the campaign, and it might work well in a debate, too.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:22 AM on March 18, 2016


Another tip for the would-be Trump debater: stay in the present and the future.

People have tried to hit his past (the donations to Democrats, the failed business ventures, the illegal workers), and it doesn't seem to be working.
posted by box at 6:30 AM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


The ultimate question in the 2016 election has emerged: just how many idiots and assholes are there in America, anyway?

Enough to re-elect Bush in 2004.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:33 AM on March 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Zero chance Donald Trump shows up to debate Hillary Clinton or anyone else. He'll hold a press conference somewhere else and mke the networks choose what to cover.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:36 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Uh huh, and how much harder to Clinton going to have to work to handle all the tone policing thrown her way? (Too shrill! Not strong enough! Too grandmotherly! Not grandmotherly enough!)

I'm not cheering for Trump here, I'm saying "Great, kid, don't get cocky."
posted by entropicamericana at 6:40 AM on March 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


How Donald Trump made me proud to be Hispanic: Everything in my background should orient me to sympathy for Trump's positions. I get it.

Except for this: I feel it.

I feel, for the first time, that some people would look at my birth certificate and name and wonder if I was really an American.

posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:05 AM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Apropos Sanders' fundraising, his ability to raise lots of money from small donations is something I admire, and as a Clinton supporter, I wish Clinton had that appeal. He is not beholden to those donors (how would that work?), and it comes across as sour grapes when I see posts suggesting that he is.

Is Clinton beholden to her large donors? No, I don't believe so, but just the process of raising money gives them access to her. (Remember that some large unions also have supported Clinton, too.) There's no way around it, and that is an ugly fact of our political system.

Clinton has been in politics at all levels and in many roles for nearly 50 years. My observation is that she overall she has done the best job humanly possible balancing the competing interests of her many constituencies from the poor and working class to financial titans while advancing a progressive agenda through a time when the political tides flowed the other way.

Between keeping that balance and the sexism and the double standards that she has endured for decades, it is no wonder that she comes across as triangulating and inauthentic to many. (People that I know who know her personally tell me that she is much warmer and charming in private.) She has made mistakes, too--she is only human--but she also has been the subject of much more intense public scrutiny and for much longer than anyone I can think of.
posted by haiku warrior at 7:11 AM on March 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


When a Latino evangelical pastor is calling out your rhetoric as racist and hurtful the idea that Trump will somehow pick up more than a handful of Latino voters is laughable.

Racist demagogues are going to force yet another demographic that might have some sympathy for Republican social positions into being loyal Democrats.
posted by vuron at 7:18 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


This election has brought out some really bad arguments in favor of peoples' favored candidates, but I can't think of anything as transparently ridiculous as trying to equate the influence of millions of small small donors to the influence of a handful of large donors advancing narrow interests. As a member of Congress representing Vermont, Sanders' job often involved setting aside his ideology to better represent the parochial interests of Vermont voters. This is how our system was set up from the beginning, and even if money were removed from the equation -- assume whatever 100% public financing scheme you can imagine -- he would have a duty to vote within the parameters of what voters want or he'll be replaced by someone who does. It's not Bernie's fault that Vermont voters like guns more than the median Democrat does, or that they fear losing the jobs that come from the F35 and other jobs programs masquerading as defense spending, nor would him voting his conscience against the wishes of his constituents do anything to change the equation on either issue.

But I want to take a minute to respond in particular to the invocation of Jesse Unruh. I don't know if this was just an allusion to the "mother's milk" quote or something more nuanced, but I just don't see how a guy who built his political machine on Wall Street money is the poster child for an argument about pandering to small donors. Care to unpack that a bit?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:21 AM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Is Clinton beholden to her large donors?

The thing is, I'm not talking about her campaign donations. I'm talking about how she personally has been made rich by personally taking money from those organizations.

Her supporters may be able to choke that down, and so far Sanders has stayed off her about it, but you've just got to know that her opponent in the general is going to be all over it -- hypocritical or not.
posted by Trochanter at 7:29 AM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]




That article by Sierra Thomas just made me so anxious when she was talking about how nervous and scared she was.

We have to do everything we possibly can to keep that man out of the White House.
posted by cooker girl at 7:55 AM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


well, tonycpsu, the Unruh thing is kind of on me. I cited his famous quote in another thread and apparently my sarcasm was not explicit enough. That's what I get for presuming that folks actually know who Jesse Unruh was and what he represented. I was alluding to his insider reputation and trying to suggest a comparison to one of the candidates in the Democratic race.

I'm thinking that some folks don't really understand how the backscratching thing works in the political world. Some, Trochanter, for example, do.

Let me quickly point out one variant of his this stuff works. Go the the library and pick up a copy of Neil Barofsky's book, "Bailout." Read the introduction, especially his recap of his dinner with Herb Allison. Classic carrot/implied stick conversation.
posted by CincyBlues at 7:59 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


That article by Sierra Thomas just made me so anxious when she was talking about how nervous and scared she was.

Um, yeah. She's so brave - I get anxious enough when I'm in some large, crowded place and I look around and see that there are no black or brown people anywhere around. I feel very alone and watched and suspected.

To go, willingly and resolutely, into a crowd like that? Saying I feel proud isn't the right word for it: grateful for her courage, maybe.

Relieved that she and the others who've done this haven't been seriously injured.

Sick that someday (maybe today, maybe next week or next month), the previous sentence will no longer be true.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:29 AM on March 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Kyle Blaine: How Donald Trump Bent Television To His Will
According to two sources familiar with the call, the Trump campaign, citing security concerns from Secret Service, dictated to the networks that their camera crews can only shoot Trump head-on from a fenced-in press pen.

Under the Trump campaign’s conditions, camera crews would not be able to leave the press pen during Trump’s rallies to capture video of audience reactions, known in the industry as “cutaway shots” or “cuts.” Networks would also not be able to use a separate riser set up to get cutaway shots.

The terms, which limit the access journalists have to supporters and protesters while Trump is speaking, are unprecedented, and are more restrictive than those put on the networks by the White House or Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which has had Secret Service protection for its duration.

Facing the risk of losing their credentialed access to Trump’s events, the networks capitulated. They did, however, get one concession: When Trump finishes speaking, one person with a camera is allowed to exit the press pen to capture him shaking hands on the ropeline while he exits. That footage is then shared among the networks.

When Trump complains that the media does not “turn the cameras” to show the size of his crowds, it’s because they can’t.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:10 AM on March 18, 2016 [21 favorites]


tor is calling out your rhetoric as racist and hurtful the idea that Trump will somehow pick up more than a handful of Latino voters is laughable.

I've mentioned this before, but it's worth saying again: my entire family except for me is voting for Trump. My family immigrated legally, and they think what he's saying doesn't apply to them. They believe 100% in American exceptionalism. They are angry, having clawed their way up, at other people who haven't and who come with their hands out. They are very, very worried about taxes, about having taxes on land and estates increased. They think people who earn should be able to keep what they earn. They are voting for Trump even when I tried to pull the Hispanic anti communist card to get them to vote for Rubio or even Cruz. They are dedicated Trump voters.

Ignoring these voters and thinking everything is fine is going to fuck us all by letting Trump get elected.
posted by corb at 9:40 AM on March 18, 2016 [18 favorites]


at other people who haven't and who come with their hands out

ugh
posted by zutalors! at 9:42 AM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also I just went to one of their Facebooks to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting, and found a long screed about how Trump loves Hispanics and Mexicans and just hates undocumented workers and trade imbalances. I mean, I feel it's bullshit, but I'm just illustrating that for a lot of people, it's not getting through. They believe him.
posted by corb at 9:48 AM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]




My family immigrated legally, and they think what he's saying doesn't apply to them. They believe 100% in American exceptionalism.

This is a significant factor. For those naturalized Americans (or permanent residents) who arrived in compliance with immigration law, talk of amnesty for millions of illegal migrants can feel insulting. "Why did we spend years waiting and following the rules when our long-sought green card is given freely to those who broke the law?", they may think. And Trump is the only mainstream candidate who's holding anything approaching a hard line on illegal immigration (where "hard line" here means "upholding immigration law and empowering USCIS officers to enforce the law" - i.e. not really that hard in practice).
posted by theorique at 9:53 AM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


people who think like that are ignorant bigots, and i don't really know how to change their mind on that.
posted by zutalors! at 9:55 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is a significant factor. For those naturalized Americans (or permanent residents) who arrived in compliance with immigration law, talk of amnesty for millions illegal migrants can feel insulting.

The way I see it, the only thing separating me and an undocumented immigrant is a piece of paper and time. And according to the anti-immigration crowd, that's the only reason why they're treating me like a legal citizen instead of like a hunted animal. That's supposed to make me feel better?
posted by FJT at 10:01 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's really not that different from "why should I care if homeless people are arrested for loitering? They should just live in a house like everyone else."
posted by theodolite at 10:02 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


The way I see it, the only thing separating me and an undocumented immigrant is a piece of paper and time.

The only thing separating me from a mass murderer is the fact that I don't kill people. Of such technicalities of law, a society is made.
posted by theorique at 10:09 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


From zombieflanders's link: “It’s the Megyn Kelly effect,” said one MSNBC producer. “If you push back too hard, it will only hurt you. It’s only going to hurt your show, your brand, your image...

Oddly enough, my impression of Megyn Kelly actually went up over this. I still don't care much for her reporting, but I respect her for actually doing her job, something virtually none of her colleagues seems capable of doing. Hell, if Megyn Kelly can question Trump, anybody should be able to do it.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 10:12 AM on March 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


For those naturalized Americans (or permanent residents) who arrived in compliance with immigration law, talk of amnesty for millions illegal migrants can feel insulting.

My personal perspective is that it is not insulting, because I understand that current American infrastructure is built on the backs of these migrants. The system wants it both ways: cheap labor they can exploit and also demonize/deport when it's politically expedient.

I also know of other immigrants that feel differently, but I think there are many, many legal migrants who feel the way I do.
posted by kyp at 10:12 AM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Regardless of who you voted for, of what you think of Sanders, let's hope his candidacy means more stuff like this being said and being heard.

I think this is what Sanders and others can do: use his candidacy, and Trump's, as a way to make it clear that there's more than one populist view here.

"Why did we spend years waiting and following the rules when our long-sought green card is given freely to those who broke the law?", they may think.

It's interesting that such people never wonder if the problem is the onerous process and not the people who don't use it. Investing a lot of time and money into navigating a broken system doesn't justify that system.

In other news, the sunk-cost fallacy is still a fallacy.
posted by kewb at 10:16 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


The only thing separating me from a mass murderer is the fact that I don't kill people.

But dead people stay dead. Undocumented people can be "documented".

Same sex marriages were "illegal" marriages because there was no legal document to back it up. But law can be changed and upheld.
posted by FJT at 10:17 AM on March 18, 2016


"This is a significant factor. For those naturalized Americans (or permanent residents) who arrived in compliance with immigration law, talk of amnesty for millions illegal migrants can feel insulting."

This sounds a lot like the more base objections to raising the minimum wage mentioned upthread: "I worked my butt off for years to get to $15/hr, why should some burger flipper start out at that rate now?". I just wish I knew an objective counter argument to that perceived injustice. One might startle a believer with Matthew 20 or make an appeal to someone's better nature, but those just don't seem effective.
posted by klarck at 10:22 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


The only thing separating me from a mass murderer is the fact that I don't kill people. Of such technicalities of law, a society is made.

Then the pertinent question is, if being undocumented is truly illegal, why are millions of undocumented immigrants implicitly allowed to stay? Why doesn't the government crack down on undocumented immigrants the same way it does mass murderers?

Is the answer, perhaps, that the USA likes it both ways? Ignore the law because it provides cheap labor, enforce/talk about the law when they want to score cheap political points?

If so, this is a "lawful" society that is not, really.
posted by kyp at 10:22 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Why doesn't the government crack down on undocumented immigrants the same way it does mass murderers?

They do. ICE deports about 400K people annually. I think it's a quota their agency has to legally meet. Obama says he tries to deport only people with criminal records, and speculation is he complies so it's an easier sell to get residency for undocumented immigrants without criminal records.
posted by FJT at 10:26 AM on March 18, 2016


Oh man. It looks like Bernie went and stuck his foot in his mouth last night in Arizona, saying something terribly offensive on the subject of the Washington Redskins.

</sarcasm>
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 10:27 AM on March 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


I've mentioned this before, but it's worth saying again: my entire family except for me is voting for Trump. My family immigrated legally, and they think what he's saying doesn't apply to them.

Without wanting to be flip about it, it's a big country with lots of people who generally aren't terribly consistent about politics, so you're going to see a few people in nearly any crosstab cell you can generate. Black gay socialist abortion-providers for Cruz and whatever. I wouldn't stress too much about what your family thinks as a harbinger about what other latinos think, especially given that nicaraguenses are (a) pretty thin on the ground in the US and (b) likely distinct in lots of ways from chicanos, which is where the action is. Not to diminish the personal agita of having to watch your family enthusiastically endorse dipshittery, of course.

I can't find March polls with ethnic crosstabs in a few minutes, but earlier ones show Trump to be *spectacularly* unpopular among people who identify as latino -- the most recent I can quickly find is from late February where 81\% of latinos view Trump unfavorably and -- keeping in mind that vote intentions now only tell you about how people feel now and not how they will vote in November -- only 16\% said they would vote for Trump over Clinton/Sanders. This would put latino Trump supporters into the same ballpark as black Republicans in non-Obama years. They exist, but not really to worry about.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:28 AM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


When two people are arguing about different things, you can't come to agreement.
I'm opposed to illegal immigration. Not the individual people, who are making the best choice they can for their family - but a tacitly allowed system of letting people in, taking their money, and only choosing to enforce it when it pleases them. I think laws that wobble between strictly enforced and barely enforced need to either go away or be strictly enforced.

But I'm not arguing based on economic benefit to GDP, so it's impossible to convince me that way. Whether tacitly accepted illegal immigrants are good or bad for the economy at large is not my concern.

I think that until we can fulfill the American promise for all the citizens, we should not be importing new people to take their money and labor, pretending they can get it. I want us to take skilled people, because skilled people aren't short of jobs, but unskilled people are.

I don't oppose Trump because of his position on immigration. I oppose Trump because he is deliberately encouraging racists to oppose immigration. Because he opposes it on "those dirty X" grounds, which is opposed to everything I believe about America.

I will say though it would be great if people could separate that. Right now, no one is looking for my vote. When people say anyone who believes in enforcing immigration law is a bigot, they are talking to me, and it makes me want nothing to do with whatever party or candidate is encouraging that. I vote Republican right now mainly because no one is offering me better options.
posted by corb at 10:35 AM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is the answer, perhaps, that the USA likes it both ways? Ignore the law because it provides cheap labor, enforce/talk about the law when they want to score cheap political points?

Definitely. Some constituencies benefit from illegal migration and some lose.

For certain business owners (construction, agriculture), an on-demand workforce that doesn't make too much of a fuss about labor law or OSHA is a useful thing.
posted by theorique at 10:36 AM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


They do. ICE deports about 400K people annually. I think it's a quota their agency has to legally meet.

That is still only about 3% of all undocumented immigrants.

My point is, comparing undocumented immigrants to mass murderers is disingenuous, because of the factors leading up to them being at odds with the law, and because the government does have double standards in how they enforce the law.
posted by kyp at 10:39 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


I will say though it would be great if people could separate that. Right now, no one is looking for my vote. When people say anyone who believes in enforcing immigration law is a bigot, they are talking to me, and it makes me want nothing to do with whatever party or candidate is encouraging that. I vote Republican right now mainly because no one is offering me better options.

The biggest problem, (and I suspect why wanting to enforce immigration law is synonymous with bigotry), is that the US has no practical way to immigrate short of being rich, a nobel prize winner, an Olympic gold medalist, or your company literally begging the US government to keep you. Demanding strict enforcement of immigration laws is basically taking away all keys to the kingdom to anyone who might significantly benefit from moving to the US for economic reasons.
posted by Talez at 10:46 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ain't hard for the GOP to stick a small radio in Trumps ear for the debate. Isn't that what they did for Shrub, no?

A priori, I imagine either Sanders or Clinton should obliterate Trump in the general, due to so many people fearing Trump, and his base being a narrow slice of the party. I'm more worried about congress, etc. :

There is an argument in Where are the young Democrats? that the right-wing Democratic machines of Clinton, Pelosi, etc. work by excluding progressives, which starves the party of young political talent. And cultural factors may be helping.

There are otoh a wide array of conservative political movements, and young politicians, backed by the Koch brothers' vast political machine. Arguably, Trump's success might be due to the Koch brothers breeding so many conservative politicians that nobody start off with enough support to suppress a crazed populist.

In other words, there is a right-ward demographic shift amongst actual politicians that runs counter to any leftward demographic shift amongst voters that one hypothesizes based upon racial demographic shifts. And obviously the Koch brothers have no problem with backing non-white conservatives.

All this could bode poorly for the Democrats' chances in House, Senate, Governorships, state legislatures, etc. Yes, the Democrats can always run somebody, but increasingly that someone either lacks political connections, or else looks like a bad guy insider.

It's plausible that Republicans could mostly hold the House and Senate for another couple decades. At minimum these trends ended the era of left-wing legislative control.

Also, there are reasonable odds the Koch brothers can find a presidential candidate with broad conservative appeal for 2020, like they did with Shrub, and anoint them early enough to keep out contenders. Ain't much chance Clinton can win a second term against that : She is unpopular now. And likely less popular then. etc.

I think the nightmare scenario is :
- Clinton pivots right, promoting awful trade deals like TPP and TTIP. It's clear her current opposition to them is a lie forced by Bernie's opposition from the left.
- Republican obstructionism prevents Clinton from accomplish legislation beyond awful trade deals, or similar stuff the Republicans like anyways, during her four year.
- Republicans dominate the House, Senate, and Presidency for the 2020s, after reducing their racism problem with more minority candidates.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:58 AM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


I stand by my comment that people who want to deport immigrants who didn't do it the "right" way are ignorant bigots.

Mostly because of this:

the US has no practical way to immigrate short of being rich, a nobel prize winner, an Olympic gold medalist, or your company literally begging the US government to keep you.


No, I am not talking specifically to anyone in this thread. But we have people here who grew up here and go to college here and work here who happen to be undocumented. Mexico is our neighbor, not our enemy. There are a million ways the US has affected economic development in that country, and for people to want a way out of that, to be near family just over that border, etc, etc, is completely understandable to me.
posted by zutalors! at 10:58 AM on March 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


if we deported all illegal immigrants we'd very quickly not be able to eat, much less most other things we take for granted on a daily basis. it's a ludicrous aim embraced by people who really don't understand how the sausage gets made. don't even get me started on people who want to revoke birthright citizenship...

we should be supporting better paths to citizenship, not building walls and figuring how streamline deportations.
posted by nadawi at 11:01 AM on March 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


Demanding strict enforcement of immigration laws is basically taking away all keys to the kingdom to anyone who might significantly benefit from moving to the US for economic reasons.

Many, many people in nations poorer than the USA would significantly benefit by moving to the US for economic reasons. The USA has no particular obligation to satisfy the economic dreams of such people, especially if it would be to the detriment of the existing citizens of the nation.

Of course, there exist powerful business lobbies, who do not have any loyalty to their fellow citizens, who seek to ensure downward pressure on wages, and an unstable, off-balance workforce. Such groups are perfectly fine with the grey area of millions of people working illegally in the USA, since it lowers their costs of labor and forces 'expensive' citizens to compete with 'cheap' foreigners.
posted by theorique at 11:02 AM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm opposed to illegal immigration. Not the individual people, who are making the best choice they can for their family - but a tacitly allowed system of letting people in, taking their money, and only choosing to enforce it when it pleases them. I think laws that wobble between strictly enforced and barely enforced need to either go away or be strictly enforced.

Then it seems to me you would want to be working towards making immigration easier to achieve legally and massively increase the regulatory capacity to go after the people taking advantage of immigrants. It may not be bigoted, but there definitely seems to be a string undercurrent of wanting to pull up the ladder after yourself because of a misguided idea that those other immigrants are just here for handouts instead of being noble bootstrap-y types like all decent 'Muricans.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:07 AM on March 18, 2016 [12 favorites]



if we deported all illegal immigrants we'd very quickly not be able to eat, much less most other things we take for granted on a daily basis. it's a ludicrous aim embraced by people who really don't understand how the sausage gets made. don't even get me started on people who want to revoke birthright citizenship...

12 million people...it would be noticeable. It would be startling, like casualties of a war.
posted by zutalors! at 11:08 AM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


if nothing else our history of violence, from slavery to warmongering to puppet governments, leaves us with some sort of responsibility to a great many nations.
posted by nadawi at 11:09 AM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Many, many people in nations poorer than the USA would significantly benefit by moving to the US for economic reasons. The USA has no particular obligation to satisfy the economic dreams of such people, especially if it would be to the detriment of the existing citizens of the nation.

The US has been abusing the poor people of the world and looting the lion's share of the world's resources for decades. I would argue the USA has a very particular obligation to satisfy the economic dreams of the entire fucking world.
posted by Talez at 11:10 AM on March 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


Also how many people would die in the process of this mass deportation? The whole scenario is horrifying.
posted by zutalors! at 11:13 AM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


12 million people...it would be noticeable. It would be startling, like casualties of a war.

On a percentage-adjusted basis, it would be more residents of the US lost than in the Civil War. By a factor of two.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:14 AM on March 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


The USA has no particular obligation to satisfy the economic dreams of such people, especially if it would be to the detriment of the existing citizens of the nation.

The economic dreams of US citizens is not being taken away by undocumented immigrants. Other American citizens are the main culprits responsible for taking away such economic dreams and have been for decades.
posted by FJT at 11:22 AM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


I vote Republican right now mainly because no one is offering me better options.

I don't want to dogpile on you, and let me say upfront that I get your perspective and felt like you for a long time. Here's some of the things that changed my mind:

When I was in university, I took a senior interdisciplinary class called Justice and Reconciliation in South Africa. One of the things we looked at is the way that the apartheid regime controlled borders (internal, external and throughout the southern Africa region) to benefit its own constituency -- the white South African minority. What ended up happening was that the regional economy became structured in such a way that workers were forced by economic conditions to travel long distances and be separated from their families for long periods of time, because the economic integration of the region had not been correspondingly connected with humane and reasonable regulations on the movement of labor.

I see the same economic pressures at work in the North American region, and trends have accelerated since the passage of NAFTA and other free trade agreements. You can't integrate economies and allow the relatively free passage of goods and capital in a given area without also allowing relatively free movement of labor. Not to do so will naturally lead to a scarcity of labor in relatively wealthy areas.

So in a narrow sense, sure: undocumented immigrants have by definition broken the law which requires immigrants to have documents. But the immigration laws we have right now are so out of sync with the economic rules of the region (which have been mainly imposed by the US) that the pressure is almost inevitable, short of a full-on police state regime that physically separates different classes of people based on their immigration status and regulates the movement of all persons. (And that's the route that South Africa took.)

It's like any other attempt to circumvent economic laws by regulation: you can nudge or incentivize here and there, but ultimately reality will assert itself. If you (say) impose price controls of 25 cents a loaf so everyone can get bread, eventually no one will be able to buy bread at the Official Rate of a quarter, but everyone will be selling $20 loaves on the black market. Are the black marketeers breaking the law? Well, yes. But prosecuting them for illegal activity is not going to fix the problem, and it will mean in the short term that no one gets bread at all.

Who is offering a fix for this? Well, GWB tried in the mid '00s and he couldn't make it work because the right wing of his party revolted. Again Obama tried (with the help of moderate GOP Senators and even some conservatives like Marco Rubio); the legislation passed the Senate but was DOA in the GOP-dominated House.

A huge coalition of liberals, moderates and conservatives have tried to get this done for 20 years. The Democratic Party has repeatedly tacked right, compromised and pleaded for this to happen. The Republican Party has been utterly unable to whip its own base into supporting comprehensive immigration reform, and just this week we've seen the political death of its latest champion for immigration reform.

If you want better options, vote for the Democrats.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:22 AM on March 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


if we deported all illegal immigrants we'd very quickly not be able to eat, much less most other things we take for granted on a daily basis.

There are no visa holders, green card holders, or citizens working in the food industry? I find that hard to believe.

Of course, food costs would rise as fruit pickers or abattoir workers were processed through E-Verify and received at least minimum wage ... but it could be a way to bring down the unemployment rate.

The US has been abusing the poor people of the world and looting the lion's share of the world's resources for decades. I would argue the USA has a very particular obligation to satisfy the economic dreams of the entire fucking world.

I hope this election turns around the imperial neocon war making as much as the next guy, but the US standard of living / GDP is very similar to peer first world nations. And it's not as though the US is as wealthy as Qatar, Bahrain, or Luxembourg on a per capita basis.
posted by theorique at 11:25 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


12 million people...it would be noticeable. It would be startling, like casualties of a war.

On a percentage-adjusted basis, it would be more residents of the US lost than in the Civil War. By a factor of two.


It would be 9-10 times the number of Americans who have died in all wars ever, by pure numbers.
posted by Etrigan at 11:28 AM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]






12 million people...it would be noticeable. It would be startling, like casualties of a war.

On a percentage-adjusted basis, it would be more residents of the US lost than in the Civil War. By a factor of two.

It would be 9-10 times the number of Americans who have died in all wars ever, by pure numbers.


Ha, I feel like a candidate who made a claim and Etrigan and man of twists and turns are the CNN wonks who looked at the data.
posted by zutalors! at 11:32 AM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


I hope this election turns around the imperial neocon war making as much as the next guy, but the US standard of living / GDP is very similar to peer first world nations. And it's not as though the US is as wealthy as Qatar, Bahrain, or Luxembourg on a per capita basis.

My point is that the lady in Bangladesh making white t-shirts at 90-something dollars a month can't move to the US, benefit from its higher wages, labor laws or better social services but we sure as hell can benefit from that T-shirt being $2.50.
posted by Talez at 11:33 AM on March 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


My family are all Republicans, except for me, and think very much in the same way as corb describes (though we mostly avoid politics so that we can maintain a relationship). They also express the concern over raising the minimum wage ("but what about people who worked hard to get to that $15?") or forgiving student debt ("I worked hard to not have any student loans/pay them back") or pretty much any program that appears to be a "shortcut" to the place they (or someone they know) worked hard to get to. To be sure, there is racism/classism/sexism involved, even if they wouldn't acknowledge it. It's belief in a true meritocracy, without acknowledging structural biases, or, thinking that because they could succeed even with their poverty/single motherhood/disability, etc, that everyone could to the same degree.

I think we need to figure out a way to reach at least some of people who think this way. There are some people who will never change their minds because they actually are really bigoted. There are other people who are just privileged along one or more axis and in a bubble of other privileged people and haven't really thought about structural injustices or the greater global context that all of this is happening in. Not saying it's the job of the oppressed to educate their oppressors, it's not. But for the more "woke" people with ties to those privileged-bubble communities, how do we reach these folks? The danger is that no one addressed their concerns from a non-bigoted perspective, and then the first guy who comes along to speak on the issue happens to be a fascist. My relatives don't really like Trump (they think his takedown of his opponents was funny and that he's saying some ok stuff but they also think he's an idiot), but will likely vote for whoever the Republican nominee is. I just wish there was a way to bring them around on some of these issues; I believe there is, I just haven't figured it out yet.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:35 AM on March 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


and empowering USCIS officers to enforce the law" - i.e. not really that hard in practice)

Empowering them to enforce the law means giving them the resources to do so. Let's set aside the humanitarian aspects and just focus on the economics, and let's also say for the sake of argument that there would be no economic impact other than the direct cost of sending every single one of the estimated ~11 million undocument immigrants back to where they came from.

With just those direct costs, the price tag on this scheme would be something in the neighborhood of $114 billion. That's an order of magnitude higher than the total annual budget for US Customs and Border Protection, meaning that money would have to come from somewhere else, or taxes would have to be raised. How do you thread that needle, keeping in mind how many Republicans simply pay lip service to the evils of illegal immigration while privately supporting big businesses that depend on the cheaper labor, and keeping in mind that Senate Democrats would certainly filibuster any bill that sought to do this?
posted by tonycpsu at 11:40 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


There are no visa holders, green card holders, or citizens working in the food industry? I find that hard to believe.

that's a ludicrous thing to take from what i said. just because some portion of the workforce includes people who have documents to live and work here, removing all undocumented people from this country would still be immediately, disastrously noticeable pretty much everywhere in our country, especially every step of food production and consumption.
posted by nadawi at 11:44 AM on March 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


But hey, prisoners!
posted by Artw at 11:45 AM on March 18, 2016


“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges…”
I want to start a series on MSNBC called "Founding Fathers Say the Darndest Things".
posted by Talez at 11:47 AM on March 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


haha bosom
posted by zutalors! at 11:49 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


i'm imagining john ashcroft pulling a curtain over Talez and zutalors! comments...
posted by nadawi at 11:53 AM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


On a totally different topic, I found this fascinating:
Elizabeth Warren on Hillary Clinton and bankruptcy.

I want to see a musical about these events now.
posted by zutalors! at 11:55 AM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Let the EEEEAGLE SOOOOAR....
posted by tonycpsu at 11:56 AM on March 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Bernie Sanders replaces stump speech with epic call for Native American justice in Arizona (with video)

Here's Sanders' Empowering Tribal Nations platform. I'm really impressed by this, actually - I think it goes well beyond boilerplate. I have several friends who work with the Nez Perce on conservation and forest management issues, and I think Sanders' emphasis on tribal sovereignty and upholding treaty obligations are really on point, especially with respect to environmental self-determination and treaty obligations on housing, health care, and education. His platform about fracking (and especially not fracking on public lands) seemed to gain a lot of traction with Native American voters in Nevada and Oklahoma. I'm curious to hear feedback on how Sanders' platform compares to Obama's platform, which was vastly better than any that came before it if I remember correctly.

When I moved to Montana, one of the most startling things was seeing firsthand how intense and pervasive structural racism against Native Americans really is. I have had many Native American students in the classes and labs I've taught and some of the stories they tell me about the racism and lack of opportunity in their schooling experiences are absolutely heartbreaking. Native American issues feel like a hugely overlooked part of the social justice dialogue, at least outside of areas with larger Native American populations. I'm really glad to hear him talking about these issues and look forward to hearing Native communities' responses to his outreach.
posted by dialetheia at 11:57 AM on March 18, 2016 [18 favorites]


Bernie's biggest lie to date: "Washington has a very good football team..."

That's it, I'm voting for Hillary.

(Wait, has she ever said anything nice about the Giants?)
posted by Drinky Die at 11:58 AM on March 18, 2016


i mean, even by nfc east standards washington's team is a dumpster fire...

looks like hillary is a baseball fan.
posted by nadawi at 12:03 PM on March 18, 2016


NFC East: Worlds Boringest Rollercoaster.
posted by Trochanter at 12:05 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ohh she's probably a Bankees fan due to being supported by Goldman Sachs and NY Senator. I mean not even Hillary could be a Mets fan.
posted by vuron at 12:09 PM on March 18, 2016


Oh looks like she's a Cubs fan. I don't know if that inspires compassion or disgust.
posted by vuron at 12:12 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


cubs/yankees since she was a little girl - i don't ~think~ she got any birthday presents from goldman sachs as an 8 year old, but i'm sure someone has written a book suggesting she did.
posted by nadawi at 12:13 PM on March 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


Haha she is in fact a Yankees fan, of course, but also a Cubs fan, and apparently it was even something of a (dumb) issue early in her Senate campaign:
"The fact is, I've always been a Yankees fan,'' the First Lady, who was born and bred in Chicago, asserted this morning to Katie Couric on NBC's ''Today Show'' in anticipation of the championship team's visit to the White House this evening. When the puzzled Ms. Couric said she thought Mrs. Clinton was a lifelong Chicago Cubs fan, the First Lady, in a classic Clintonian gesture, quickly claimed loyalty to the Cubs, too.

''I am a Cubs fan,'' said Mrs. Clinton, who threw out the first pitch at Wrigley Field in Chicago on opening day in 1994. ''But I needed an American League team because when you're from Chicago, you cannot root for both the Cubs and the Sox. I mean, there's a dividing line that you can't cross there. So as a young girl, I became very interested and enamored of the Yankees.''

posted by dialetheia at 12:14 PM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


David Brooks status update: No, Not Trump, Not Ever.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:16 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


yeah, people tried to say she was lying about her yankee fandom to seem more likeable for her senate run, but not true.
posted by nadawi at 12:18 PM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]




in a classic Clintonian gesture, quickly claimed loyalty to the Cubs, too.


Ah this is such a good example of the shit she has to deal with. In this case, as with so many of the thing she gets shit for, her reasoning is perfectly sound, there's no reason to believe she's insincere, but the reporter both takes for granted and perpetuates the idea that she's just inherently a liar.

And this in the NYT -- the paper that's supposed to be most slavishly devoted to the democratic establishment.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 12:22 PM on March 18, 2016 [17 favorites]


With just those direct costs, the price tag on this scheme would be something in the neighborhood of $114 billion.

Oosh. A $5B wall starts to look like a relative bargain at this point.
posted by theorique at 12:23 PM on March 18, 2016


Oosh. A $5B wall starts to look like a relative bargain at this point.

Try $25 billion. And there are more and more undocumented immigrants arriving from Asia, so this whole wall would be a waste of time and resources either way you look at it.
posted by FJT at 12:30 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Spoiler: the big issue he's going to run on for his second term is building a wall across the Pacific ocean, which China will pay for.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:34 PM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ugh, a hamburger for $11? $5 to get punched in the testicles looks like a bargain, now.
posted by beerperson at 12:36 PM on March 18, 2016 [7 favorites]




David Brooks status update: No, Not Trump, Not Ever.

Reasons David Brooks Thinks Donald Trump Should Not Be President
--Trump is immature
--Trump lies all the time
--Trump is a narcissist
--Trump has no realistic policies
--Per Psalm 73, God will probably strike Trump down soon

Reasons David Brooks Either Forgot To Mention Or Actually Doesn't Care About
--Trump wants to deport millions upon millions of people
--Trump wants to basically close the borders

Things David Brooks Is Willing To Do To Stop Trump
--To write whining screeds in the New York Times
--"[To] make an extra effort to put on decency, graciousness, patience and humility [and] to seek a purity of heart that is stable and everlasting."
--To condemn the content of any of Donald Trump's policies
--To endorse Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump should win the Republican nomination

Is there a more cowardly political commentator on the contemporary American scene than Mr. David Brooks? I submit to you that there is not.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:40 PM on March 18, 2016 [38 favorites]


A Slate writer thinks it will be "cheaper", based on comparison with the Israeli-West Bank security barrier. But the cost per mile varies a lot based on where you want the tall concrete slabs and where you will settle for a basic wire fence with electronic sensing. Either way, it's a pretty big project, as well as a pretty big part of "The Donald" campaign.
posted by theorique at 12:40 PM on March 18, 2016


the price of the wall is pretty low on the list of reasons it's absolutely objectionable.
posted by nadawi at 12:43 PM on March 18, 2016 [18 favorites]


you gotta factor in the fake marble and gold paint too
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:44 PM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't mind the wall itself, it's pointless but at least it will generate some jobs. It's the mass deportation idea and the blatant racism from Trump that turns it from a boondoggle into a physical symbol of tyranny and oppression that is out of step with American ideals.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:53 PM on March 18, 2016


$5 to get punched in the testicles looks like a bargain, now.

I don't think you did your MeFi signup correctly.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:57 PM on March 18, 2016 [24 favorites]


I don't mind the wall itself, it's pointless but at least it will generate some jobs.

And hey, at least the next generation will have something iconic to tear down
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:01 PM on March 18, 2016 [16 favorites]


I don't mind the wall itself, it's pointless but at least it will generate some jobs.

Mexican jobs?

Anything about the wall is horrific, and the idea that Mexicans have to build it themselves as punishment for being brown is outrageous
posted by zutalors! at 1:06 PM on March 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


They're going to pay for it, not build it, if I understand this very serious and realistic proposal properly.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:07 PM on March 18, 2016


I think it's serious to the people voting for Trump. I think? I find the whole "well he really won't DO all that stuff" silly.

Ugh, this is a horrible election.
posted by zutalors! at 1:09 PM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


A wall might actually be a great lifesaver, similar to the Australian migrant policy implemented for a time by the Abbott government for the past 1.5 years or so. People attempt the trip because they believe it is worth the risk. By making it entirely impossible (or as close to impossible as we can) to enter the country illegally, the incentive to do so is reduced. Fewer attempted crossings means fewer migrant deaths.
posted by theorique at 1:09 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


i can't believe people are making a case for this wall in here.
posted by zutalors! at 1:13 PM on March 18, 2016 [23 favorites]


"well he really won't DO all that stuff"

I was aiming more for, "He can't really do that," as far as the having Mexico pay for it part. I'm sure he would try and build a wall if he was in office but he would have to find another way.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:13 PM on March 18, 2016


Yeah I hear you, I wasn't mistaking you for a Trump supporter DD.
posted by zutalors! at 1:14 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Many, many people in nations poorer than the USA would significantly benefit by moving to the US for economic reasons. The USA has no particular obligation to satisfy the economic dreams of such people, especially if it would be to the detriment of the existing citizens of the nation.


This is an interesting statement given that nothing is stopping the unemployed residents from impoverished areas in the US from walking a hundred miles or so to where these jobs are that undocumented Mexican immigrants are coming in to take. ICE will not set up roadblocks on the border of Michigan to try to catch them. Nobody will catch them using fake social security numbers because they can legally have a proper social security card (assuming the jobs in question actually document & pay taxes...). They won't have to fear sending their kids to the local public school because they might get nabbed and deported. The only thing stopping them from taking those jobs is a willingness to do the work for the money offered and to uproot their life in a dramatic way to relocate to where the work is.

Now personally I don't think they should have to (to the extent that folks sneaking across a border do; it seems clear we need a more mobile workforce than we currently have), but let's not blow sunshine up each other's pantlegs here that a majority of these undocumented workers are body-checking citizens out of the way for these gigs. They're largely jobs that citizens don't want, either because of the stressful conditions or because they're illegal-level wages.

To the detriment of the existing citizens is something that happens because we turn and cough and decrease funding for enforcement against employers at the federal level, don't demand they use E-Verify at the state level (are we up from the four total states that demanded adoption as of mid-2015?), don't enforce at the state level (see prior link), and slash fines when business do get caught. All allows businesses to subvert the law to line their pockets, all while the rest of us kabuki dance about, talking about people coming in for pissant money for jobs that citizens don't want.
posted by phearlez at 1:16 PM on March 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


All allows businesses to subvert the law to line their pockets, all while the rest of us kabuki dance about, talking about people coming in for pissant money for jobs that citizens don't want.

People would want those jobs if they paid a living wage. I'm not convinced it's the immigrants driving down the wages though, there are economic benefits to having immigrants that counterbalance any downward pressure. But, I can't really blame someone who believes that they do. It seems like common sense and the economic explanations for why that common sense isn't true can be difficult to understand, especially when the other side can always find some economist to say the opposite.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:22 PM on March 18, 2016


our country was built on and continues to run on basically slave labor, we just change what that means when it becomes politically expedient. it'd be great if we tried to work our way out of that. a better path to citizenship, a $15 minimum wage, and judicial reform would go a long way...
posted by nadawi at 1:26 PM on March 18, 2016 [18 favorites]




People would want those jobs if they paid a living wage.

There is middling evidence on this assertion which I am too lazy to google up, but it's out there and indicates there's some of this work which even at legal above-minimum wages (but possibly not good enough, when you consider physical impact) citizens won't take.

But yeah, that's not really the important part. The pertinent issue is that (1) no undocumented immigrant is supplanting a citizen from taking that job as it exists and (2) the UI has come here because that job is here. Build as high a wall as you like, those businesses and jobs will still be on this side of the wall and folks will find a way to get to them. But you can sue/fine the fuck out those businesses without building shit... if you really want to.

Personally I think it makes better financial sense to just penalize the violating businesses and spend the construction money on our broken-ass infrastructure rather than a wall. But I'm fiscally conservative that way, so I'm not welcome in the tax and run up debt and spend republican party strategy dialogs.
posted by phearlez at 1:46 PM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Zeke Miller ✔ ‎@ZekeJMiller
Inbox: CNN To Host Final Five Presidential Candidates in Primetime Event on Monday, March 21


I want this to be a tag team debate so bad but instead it will be something boring.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:58 PM on March 18, 2016


are they all going to be in the same place? that seems impossible.
posted by zutalors! at 2:01 PM on March 18, 2016


Donald Trump, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Ohio Governor John Kasich and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will each be individually interviewed in the CNN Election Center in Washington, D.C. while Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders will be interviewed from the campaign trail.

Yup, boring.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:02 PM on March 18, 2016


Unless they're just saying that to get them all in the same place and then SURPRISE CAGE MATCH TIME
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:05 PM on March 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


i can't believe people are making a case for this wall in here.

It's "person", not "people" as far as I can tell, and since said person has retreated from "round 'em all up" to "keep the new ones out", I think we have a pretty good illustration of the Overton window in action.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:12 PM on March 18, 2016


Oh no I lied, I was not too lazy to google.

North Carolina needed 6,500 farm workers. Only 7 Americans stuck it out.
But surely it's possible that, if H-2A didn't exist, the prevailing wage for agricultural work would rise above where it's estimated now, and thus attract more native workers, right? Sure, but it's unclear even that would make a difference.

For one thing, the share of workers completing the growing season didn't increase during the recession, during which wages for NCGA jobs grew relative to other wages in the economy. "The increase in unemployment mirrors a loss of wages generally in the economy — decreased availability of jobs everywhere else in the economy should be reflected in an increased interest in the NCGA farm jobs because people’s ability to earn income across the broader economy is more limited, making these jobs more valuable in comparison," Clemens explains. That suggests that similar in scale wage increases wouldn't spur increased demand for these jobs on the part of native workers either.
This is near the bottom of the article and it goes on to handwave that you can't just double the wages and still be profitable, as well as other question begging stuff. The author also acknowledges that this is not from people without a bias. But that's some of the best apples to apples comparison above you can find.
posted by phearlez at 2:18 PM on March 18, 2016


This is near the bottom of the article and it goes on to handwave that you can't just double the wages and still be profitable, as well as other question begging stuff. The author also acknowledges that this is not from people without a bias. But that's some of the best apples to apples comparison above you can find.

And the reason why you're seeing Mexicans glad to do the work is because the minimum wage is somewhere in the region of 50c an hour depending on the day of the week and the exchange rage. Mexican PPP is 1/3 of the US. If someone offers you the local equivalent of $22/hr to pick vegetables I'm sure you'd have Americans wanting to do it as well.
posted by Talez at 2:27 PM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie Sanders will not attend AIPAC conference

(Hillary and Trump are both confirmed speakers)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 2:28 PM on March 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


Unless they're just saying that to get them all in the same place and then SURPRISE CAGE MATCH TIME

CANDIDATES: SELECT YOUR WEAPON OF CHOICE

Trump: faux gold-and-ivory ceremonial sword from elite private military-style academy, made in China

Cruz: none required (can change into wolverine form at will, uses bite and claw attacks)

Sanders: vintage American-made hammer previously used in WPA projects

Clinton: stocking full of BlackBerrys sends aide to Home Depot to pick up a hammer that looks like Sanders'

Kasich: Louisville Slugger that looks reasonable until you notice there's rusty nails sticking out of it
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:30 PM on March 18, 2016 [35 favorites]


A wall might actually be a great lifesaver, similar to the Australian migrant policy implemented for a time by the Abbott government for the past 1.5 years or so.

Yes, we could save lives and tell people it's not worth it working in subhuman conditions in the US by actually locking people and treating them like subhumans. The Australian Migrant Policy is more than just a wall, and it's more than just turning people back. They put adults and children in secret detention centers on the Australian Mainland and on remote islands, on average for seven months.

Honestly, it's not like the US hasn't tried. There are already a number of detention centers that undocumented folks are put into that are pretty much prisons, and they lock people up for years sometimes.

And don't think I disagree because I think it wouldn't work or doesn't go far enough.

The wall and deportation is a completely idiotic and shortsighted idea that will be a costly boondoggle that will only increase human suffering and worsen our relations with Mexico. And it's also not only un-American, it's completely anti-American.
posted by FJT at 2:34 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie Sanders will not attend AIPAC conference

Damn it, that really sucks. I wanted him to fucking tear into Trump over the neo-fascist imagery and insinuations, and especially the palling around with hate groups who have targeted Jewish people. Preferably if he could do it to Trump's face like Obama did at the Correspondents' Dinner.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:35 PM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


THUN DER DOME
THUN DER DOME
THUN DER DOME

TWO MEN ENTER ONE MAN LEAVES
TWO MEN ENTER ONE MAN LEAVES
posted by theorique at 2:39 PM on March 18, 2016


The obvious problem with that farmworker article is it assumes prices couldn't rise if wages did. They wouldn't even have to rise very much to increase wages.

Let's say (for example) that a farmworker picks a cucumber every 10 seconds (fairly conservative). That's six per minute, or 360 an hour. If you pay that farmworker $20/hr instead of $10/hr, the price of a cucumber will go up 2.8 cents. The market can absolutely tolerate an increase of $0.03/cucumber without impoverishing anybody, and while restoring a reasonable living wage to a very difficult job. This is true for all horticultural crops. Tariff imported cucumbers 3 cents if you need to in order to keep American ones competitive.

The solution isn't politically easy, but it's pretty simple and straightforward.
posted by zug at 3:06 PM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump: faux gold-and-ivory ceremonial sword from elite private military-style academy, made in China

It's called the Sword of Chang, stolen from his previously vanquished opponents Jeb and Marco.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:22 PM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Has anyone seen any analyses of how religious views may be playing a factor in the Democratic primaries? Specifically, how religious voters could be tipping the nomination to Hillary, especially in the South because of her stronger religious (and Christian) beliefs? (And I suppose the inverse: how non-evangelicals / non-religious voters are more likely to swing towards Bernie, etc.)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:27 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]






Mitt Romney is voting for Ted Cruz to give Mitt Romney the best shot at being nominated in a brokered convention.
posted by peeedro at 4:09 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh man, poor Jeb if they end up somehow selecting Mitt.

"Yeah, turns out we wanted a boring establishment guy nobody is excited about after all. But, uh...not you, Jeb. Sorry."
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:20 PM on March 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


Get Bruce Willis, or Kelsey Grammer, or Craig T. Nelson. They can read cue cards until they're up to speed. (of course, they may all already be for Trump)
posted by Trochanter at 4:43 PM on March 18, 2016


haha I bet John Kasich is pissed right now
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:01 PM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


-Donald Trump will force the Democratic Party to make a fundamental decision: There are three ways to go up against Trump: option one, address the new wave of populist anger directly, and try to add as many Sanders voters, and maybe even potential Trump voters, to the Obama coalition as possible; option two, try to bring in the more cosmopolitan Republicans who would never pull the lever for Trump; or option three, do nothing and just try to pull off 2008 and 2012 again.

Since option three would increase Trump's chances of winning, the Democrats will probably pick the first or second options. Which they choose will say a lot about what makes the Democratic Party tick.


-Why it's So Hard to Attack Trump
-Flirting with Populist Politics
-Don’t Be So Sure Hillary Clinton Will Crush Donald Trump
posted by FJT at 5:14 PM on March 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


What I Saw at the Revolution by Donald J. Trump - February 19, 2000
That, however, is not the case. I seriously thought that America might be ready for a businessman president, someone with an eye for the bottom line, someone who has created thousands of jobs and isn't part of the ''inside the Beltway'' buddy system. I also thought that Americans might be ready for straight talk and that they would find an unscripted candidate appealing.

Later in op piece:

I preferred a race against Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, two establishment politicians whose nominations looked certain and whose issue positions seemed virtually indistinguishable; both support America's current trade policies, including Nafta and the World Trade Organization.

I felt confident that my argument that America was being ripped off by our major trade partners and that it was time for tougher trade negotiations would have resonance in a race against the two Ivy League contenders.

posted by FJT at 5:25 PM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


You have to figure that the choice between options one and two will depend on their perceived impact on downticket races, especially the Senate. I don’t know how that would shake out—maybe tacking right would encourage moderate Republicans to ticket-split, whereas tacking left would encourage them to just stay home? (Of course, I have very little confidence in my ability to predict anything this year…)
posted by nicepersonality at 5:26 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]




> David Brooks status update: No, Not Trump, Not Ever.

David Brooks Should Sit the Next Few Plays Out
posted by homunculus at 6:18 PM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


What I Saw at the Revolution by Donald J. Trump

Interesting piece, especially given how much distance he wanted to put between himself and the White Power movement that he has let sucker on to his 2016 campaign like a lamprey.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 6:23 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maybe Black People Aren't Feeling Bernie Sanders because We're Tired of People Saying We Should Be

"Of course, if you share any of this with that type of fervent Sanders supporter, you’ll likely get hit with an avalanche of pie charts, policy papers, and selfies with Killer Mike. “Please, just listen to me” they’ll state; conveniently ignoring their refusal to do the same."
posted by zutalors! at 6:24 PM on March 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


So, Clinton and Sanders supporters both, how do we reach voters who are primarily getting their information through disingenuous Facebook memes? My mom, who I've posted a lot about, today posted something about an EMT making $15 an hour and how dare those burger flippers ask for the same? How does a Democratic candidate reach out to people like her? How do we show that we are the most invested in caring for our veterans, when the GOP is running a false narrative of veteran's rights over undocumented people? Can we stop the infighting long enough to reach out to people who are ideologically on our side but have been fed the lie otherwise? The GOP runs a much better rhetorical game. If we want to win this, we need to stop attacking each other and reach out to the disaffected people who fundamentally agree with us but have been suckered into the game.
posted by Ruki at 6:24 PM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Maybe Black People Aren't Feeling Bernie Sanders because We're Tired of People Saying We Should Be

It's kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't. What are you to do in the face of losing a campaign because you aren't appealing to a demographic...stop trying?
posted by Drinky Die at 6:26 PM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm not sure, but saying "we'll get the rest of the map, because it's more white!" probably won't help.

That article says a lot of what I was saying yesterday, but in blogger form so I was happy to see it (including But...but Killer Mike!).
posted by zutalors! at 6:29 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


David Brooks Should Sit the Next Few Plays Out

Charles P. Pierce is a national treasure.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:29 PM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


The article also addresses the "black people just didn't learn how he's better for them" stuff.
posted by zutalors! at 6:30 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


David Brooks Should Sit the Next Few Plays Out

I like Pierce and all, but I'm not at all sure what he's trying to say in that piece. Other than that Brooks is a dummy. Which, you know, fair enough, but a little thin as a premise there, Charlie.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:34 PM on March 18, 2016


Not quite sure what to make of this: Bernie Sanders walks out in middle of TV interview. Was it because of the question about his wife? Really just that the four minutes were up? One of my main reservations about him is his irascibility--while I find it kind of endearing in isolation, I wonder how he's going to cope with being infuriated by Trump. My caucus is coming up and whereas I was previously 100% Bernie, now I'm in agonies trying to figure out the surest path to Not Trump.
posted by HotToddy at 6:39 PM on March 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


they're saying on CNN that Trump needs 70% of the white vote to win.
posted by zutalors! at 6:44 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


it's so amazing how CNN will have an hour and a half of wonks complaining about Trump and then cut to BREAKING NEWS - weather disaster? war? mass shooting? no, just a Trump rally.

He's bashing Rubio, btw.
posted by zutalors! at 7:01 PM on March 18, 2016


He's bashing Rubio, btw.

Classy! The classiest!
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:06 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


yeah, it's like...why.
posted by zutalors! at 7:09 PM on March 18, 2016


He just can't help himself, remember bashing Christie when he was standing right behind him? His strategy for Hillary is probably going to be to ignore her and keep talking shit on Jeb and Rubio.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:13 PM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Salon article about bernie ending the interview.

Bernie Sanders abruptly ended an admittedly hostile interview with NBC affiliate KNPX, at the Twin Arrows Casino in Flagstaff, Arizona.

Primary voting in the state will take place this coming Tuesday. If polls are any indication (remember Michigan?), Sanders’ future in the state looks bleak.

“We discussed his wife’s recent visit to Tent City, his votes on gun legislation, border issues, and why he’s optimistic about his chances in Arizona,” the station said in a write-up of the truncated four-minute interview, glossing over the inherent bias in its reporter’s hypercriticism of Sanders’s congressional voting record.

“You know what, my views on immigration are very strong,” Sanders said, interrupted a question about his yes-vote on the so-called Minuteman Project. “It’s very easy for Secretary Clinton to be going through the thousands of votes that I cast, but the truth of the matter is, of course to suggest that I’m sympathetic to minutemen or vigilantes is totally outrageous.”

In the station’s words, “Then the senator abruptly ended the interview, saying our time was up.”

posted by futz at 7:18 PM on March 18, 2016


What are you to do in the face of losing a campaign because you aren't appealing to a demographic...stop trying?

In politics, as in life, sometimes there's just no workable answer to "what can I do to make you like me?"
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:19 PM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


What are you to do in the face of losing a campaign because you aren't appealing to a demographic...stop trying?

Hillary is obviously the type to keep trying stuff until something works (or nothing does, and she looks shifty.) Bill did the same but he's just so damn good at it, genuinely good in the sense that (IMHO) he did find compromises that worked for many people to keep moving the ball forward.

The adaptive approach is no fun, it's hard to cheer for it. Bernie takes the opposite approach, the uncompromising "I never change and my opponents are weasels!" approach. That's easy to cheer for, assuming you agree, and admirable even if you don't.

But it means you can't suddenly change, and after 26 years in Congress, he has a long record that people aren't going to reconsider because of an election year shift. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
posted by msalt at 7:26 PM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]



What are you to do in the face of losing a campaign because you aren't appealing to a demographic...stop trying?

In politics, as in life, sometimes there's just no workable answer to "what can I do to make you like me?"


Or, maybe stop saying you're getting a revolution of voters if you have so much trouble appealing to an entire demographic.
posted by zutalors! at 7:29 PM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Of course, if you share any of this with that type of fervent Sanders supporter, you’ll likely get hit with an avalanche of pie charts, policy papers, and selfies with Killer Mike. “Please, just listen to me” they’ll state; conveniently ignoring their refusal to do the same."

It's kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't. What are you to do in the face of losing a campaign because you aren't appealing to a demographic...stop trying?

i mean...the answer is right there - honest engagement, listening to people, not burying them in ~facts~ and ~but killer mike~. it's not "stop trying" but trying to figure out why burying people in pie charts isn't getting the job done. i've seen quite a bit of interaction from bernie supporters to woc, especially black women, on social media who are undecided on who they will support and the tact being described up there is pretty pitch perfect from what i've seen. it just comes off as so condescending. you can even tell that most people are going out of their way to not come off as condescending - it's just so obvious that their interest in sanders in genuine and their interest in hearing the person their speaking to is very low.
posted by nadawi at 7:32 PM on March 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


I will take an irascible but intelligent, brutally honest and thoughtful person over a flip floppy pandering inauthentic person or a thin skinned dictatorial man child any day.
posted by futz at 7:33 PM on March 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


All these people. It's almost like we don't know who you're seeking to impugn.
posted by OmieWise at 7:35 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


that's why they call it Bernie or Bust.
posted by zutalors! at 7:37 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mod note: Hello friends. I believe fervently that you're all capable of talking about these things, and saying good things about your preferred candidate, without suggesting that people in the thread who disagree with you suck.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:40 PM on March 18, 2016 [17 favorites]


it's just so obvious that their interest in sanders in genuine and their interest in hearing the person their speaking to is very low.

Yep. It's very inauthentic.
posted by zutalors! at 7:42 PM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


holy god all those typos. lets all pretend like i proofread it for more than content and that i really do know the difference between their and they're...
posted by nadawi at 7:45 PM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


holy god all those typos. lets all pretend like i proofread it for more than content and that i really do know the difference between their and they're...

Nooo! Let's burn her at the stake for speaking above a 6th grade level!

:)
posted by futz at 7:50 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


They're, their, there--is they're a difference? :-)

You rock, nadawi! We know what you mean, and we appreciate your (you're?) contributions.
posted by haiku warrior at 7:57 PM on March 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Don't for a minute think nadawi doesn't know what they're doing. They know exactly what their doing. They are systematically changing our grammar...
posted by zutalors! at 8:02 PM on March 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


“You know what, my views on immigration are very strong,” Sanders said

Second interview I've watched with Bernie getting testy on immigration. At least this time he didn't go with the "It's a right-wing Koch brothers plot to do away with the American nation-state" answer...
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:10 PM on March 18, 2016


wow.
posted by zutalors! at 8:16 PM on March 18, 2016




I guess they didn't get inside because the venue only had tickets for 1500 people.
posted by yertledaturtle at 8:37 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]




The Rude Pundit: Note to Republicans: You Own Trump, You Psychopaths
posted by homunculus at 8:47 PM on March 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


he either doesn't get how 5th gen mormons like the romneys are seen inside the church or he's trying to provoke romney because he knows he's losing utah regardless.
posted by nadawi at 8:54 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm from Utah and I'm curious what's going to happen in the general election here. The Mormons don't seem to like Trump at all, and I'm not sure they like Cruz either.

Our measly 5 electoral votes, usually handed by default to the Republican candidate, might go to a third party. Or even a Democrat! Ha ha, had myself going there for a moment.
posted by mmoncur at 10:12 PM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]




[Lindsey Graham] is such a weird cat, I almost like him.

Motherfucker was a prosecutor for impeaching Clinton. The grudge endures.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:17 PM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


so interested in the general for utah! i know because of their small number of electoral votes people don't generally care about them, but still, totally interested! i really and truly can't see them voting for any woman, but especially hillary - but i also can't see enough nose holding in the world that would get them to vote for trump. writing in joseph smith? really in this election anything is possible.
posted by nadawi at 10:21 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


They wouldn't write in Joseph Smith, but they would write in Mitt Romney. It's interesting because Mormon doctrine says it's important to vote, but I think a lot of them would rather stay home this time.

Also, the sexism is very, very real, but I haven't seen as much Hilary Clinton hate here among the Republicans as I hear about in other parts of the country.

Honestly I think they will indeed hold their noses and vote for Trump. But it could be interesting, especially if the church itself takes a position, as they of course do on political issues sometimes...
posted by mmoncur at 10:29 PM on March 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


One of the weirdest things about this election is seeing Fox News on a valid moral high ground over someone.

#Break: FOX News response to @realDonaldTrump attack on Megyn Kelly
posted by Drinky Die at 11:41 PM on March 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


They had to point out that she is the "mother of three young children," of course.
posted by bardophile at 12:44 AM on March 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Outside Trump Utah event, hundreds of protesters clash with hundreds of Trump supporters who didn't get inside.

I can't remember an election (at least in the USA) where this kind of protest action was such a big deal. It could get messy. What if a Trump supporter is killed by protestors, or a protestor is killed by Trump supporters? What if a cop shoots someone? A lot of chaos scenarios here.

(I hear people talk about the DNC of 1968 as a high-water mark of this kind of thing but I do not remember it, not having been born yet.)
posted by theorique at 2:12 AM on March 19, 2016


Yesterday's installment of Democracy Now! (alt link, transcript), in the course of covering the murders of indigenous Honduran activists during the past week, highlighted Secretary Clinton's role in legitimizing the government proceeding from the 2009 Honduran coup. (previously)

Nominally at the behest of the Supreme Court of Honduras the Honduran military seized the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya, who had attempted to schedule a public referendum concerning the country's constitution, but rather than putting him on trial for the actions which allegedly necessitated his removal he was expelled from the country.

A Wikileaks diplomatic cable sent to the State Department said, (alt link)
The Embassy perspective is that there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch, while accepting that there may be a prima facie case that Zelaya may have committed illegalities and may have even violated the constitution. There is equally no doubt from our perspective that Roberto Micheletti's assumption of power was illegitimate. Nevertheless, it is also evident that the constitution itself may be deficient in terms of providing clear procedures for dealing with alleged illegal acts by the President and resolving conflicts between the branches of government.
But despite initial public protestations, within months the U.S. had relented on its insistence on the restoration of the Zelaya government, and in early 2010 Secretary Clinton herself announced restoration of U.S. aid to the government produced by the boycotted post-coup elections, saying of other Latin American countries "I don’t know what they’re waiting for".

More polemical articles linked to in recent MeFi threads.
posted by XMLicious at 4:08 AM on March 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Guardian really doesn't get how Republucans work.
posted by Artw at 4:33 AM on March 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


But it could be interesting, especially if the church itself takes a position, as they of course do on political issues sometimes...

And yet, they still enjoy tax-exempt status. Yay, God!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:30 AM on March 19, 2016




And yet, they still enjoy tax-exempt status. Yay, God!

It's possible to engage in discussion and education and certain forms of advovacy while being tax-exempt as long as you are not issuing calls to action or endorsing a specific candidate using the resources of a church organization. IRS: " churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. " This is widely misunderstood - there are limits on what you can do with a 501(c)3 tax status, but it does not require a church organization to be entirely silent on issues related to political activity.
posted by Miko at 8:18 AM on March 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


And yet, they still enjoy tax-exempt status. Yay, God!

Has the LDS actually been known to endorse specific candidates? (Genuine question, I have no idea.)

My understanding is that churches are free to advocate for issues and causes that are important to them, just as any non-profit is -- the red line is going from, say, "Our values of diversity and respect and blah blah blah mean that we call upon our members to consider these things when going to the polls" vs. "Donald Trump is a racist, vote for Ted Cruz instead."

It's sort of a silly needle to thread in a way, but also I think it's important that non-profit organizations, religious and secular alike, be free to express their values and to be able to encourage their members to take those values into the voting booth with them. And equally I think that groups should not be able to receive the tax benefits of non-profit status if they're going to go around being a tax dodge for particular candidates. (Plus there are so many easier ways for candidates to get outside support post-Citizens United.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:20 AM on March 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, what Miko said. This kind of talk, by the way, although it's totally understandable and I get the frustration -- is what fuels the whole ridiculous GET YOUR GUMMIT HANDS OFFA MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM thing, which is (a) not actually a serious danger and (b) kind of spits in the face of people of minority faiths around the world who actually do face persecution based on their religion.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:24 AM on March 19, 2016 [1 favorite]




Very interesting read on Trump's worldview, by Adam Davidson of NPR's Planet Money:

What Donald Trump Doesn’t Understand About ‘the Deal’

posted by bluecore at 9:19 AM on March 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sooo...

Sheriff Arpaio to police Trump’s Arizona rally

This gives us a window into what a fully-constituted American take on fascism would look like...

“Here I’m gonna be kinda wearing two hats — in charge of the security there in the town and also participating, I would imagine, with Trump in the rally, so it makes it interesting,” Arpaio said in an interview with POLITICO, adding that it “is going to be a lot of fun taking care of business there.”
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:51 AM on March 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


WELP. Paging Mr. Eugene Connor....
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:01 AM on March 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


Tangentially, from that Politico article:

Islamophopic

Even the small copy-editing gremlins that power the Metafilter comment box have red-squiggly-lined this as not a spelling. (Although they do appear to be a bit overeager, given that the word "Metafilter" itself is also so flagged...)

I guess copy editing is just totally dead now?
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:06 AM on March 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


They did put the accent on Rep. Raúl Grijalva's name though so that's commendable I guess
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:08 AM on March 19, 2016


I have to applaud the courage of the people willing to protest a Trump rally in Arpaio's neighborhood. That quote about how he's going to have "a lot of fun taking care of business there" is sick, and it's a reminder that these kinds of protests are dangerous for the people involved - but also totally necessary.
posted by teponaztli at 10:13 AM on March 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


Arpaio is 83? I can't believe people can run on pure idiocy and hatred for so long.
posted by zutalors! at 10:14 AM on March 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


If you're unfamiliar with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, you should take a gander at the controversies section of his wikipedia page. That man shouldn't be a greeter at WalMart, much less an acting Sheriff.
posted by bluecore at 10:17 AM on March 19, 2016


Protesters blocking road that is an entrance to Trump's Arizona rally.
Another group of protesters blocking road near SR87/Shea. Watch here:
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:19 AM on March 19, 2016


I'm not unfamiliar with him, at all, I just didn't realize he was so old.
posted by zutalors! at 10:21 AM on March 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


Arpaio comes across as sort of desperate to be on stage with Trump, which would be pathetic if he weren't as popular as he is.
posted by teponaztli at 10:23 AM on March 19, 2016


There is also a protest today at Trump Tower in NYC
https://twitter.com/CassandraRules/status/711242840156852224
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:29 AM on March 19, 2016


From Trump's speech in Utah:
Trump said he had a Jewish friend living in Utah who speaks highly of members of the LDS faith. And then he joked that he paid the tithing of some of his Mormon employees directly to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to avoid the temptation of taking the money.
Sigh
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:30 AM on March 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


#CrushTrump NYC marching
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:35 AM on March 19, 2016




the mormons don't officially endorse candidates, but they did take an official position on prop 8, including instructing members on how to vote and where to donate time and money.
posted by nadawi at 10:53 AM on March 19, 2016


Very interesting read on Trump's worldview, by Adam Davidson of NPR's Planet Money:
What Donald Trump Doesn’t Understand About ‘the Deal’
posted by bluecore at 12:19 PM on March 19


Well worth reading. That and the George Lakoff article linked earlier have given me some new insights on Trump's campaign.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:55 AM on March 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


How Donald Trump Bent Television To His Will:
After several incidents of Trump campaign aides threatening to revoke credentials for reporters who left the fenced-in press pen, representatives from ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Fox News, and CNN organized a conference call with Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to negotiate access.

According to two sources familiar with the call, which took place in November, the Trump campaign, citing security concerns from Secret Service, dictated to the networks that their camera crews could only shoot Trump head-on from a fenced-in press pen. ...

The terms, which limit the access journalists have to supporters and protesters while Trump is speaking, are unprecedented, and are more restrictive than those put on the networks by the White House or Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which has had Secret Service protection for its duration.

Facing the risk of losing their credentialed access to Trump’s events, the networks capitulated.
posted by dialetheia at 10:57 AM on March 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sanders is wrong about the lawsuit we filed after our son's murder in Newtown.
We write in response to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s comments about our lawsuit at the recent Democratic presidential debate in Michigan. Sanders suggested that the “point” of our case is to hold Remington Arms Co. liable simply because one of its guns was used to commit mass murder. With all due respect, this is simplistic and wrong.
This case is about a particular weapon, Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.
We have never suggested that Remington should be held liable simply for manufacturing the AR-15. In fact, we believe that Remington and other manufacturers’ production of the AR-15 is essential for our armed forces and law enforcement. But Remington is responsible for its calculated choice to sell that same weapon to the public, and for emphasizing the military and assaultive capacities of the weapon in its marketing to civilians...

...Sanders has spent decades tirelessly advocating for greater corporate responsibility, which is why we cannot fathom his support of companies that recklessly market and profit from the sale of combat weapons to civilians and then shrug their shoulders when the next tragedy occurs, leaving ordinary families and communities to pick up the pieces.

posted by bardophile at 11:05 AM on March 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump said he had a Jewish friend living in Utah who speaks highly of members of the LDS faith. And then he joked that he paid the tithing of some of his Mormon employees directly to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to avoid the temptation of taking the money.

Ignoring the money slur....

Mormons have a really horrible reputation with many Jews for a whole bunch of reasons. I wouldn't expect Trump to know or be aware of it, and most Jews who support him probably wouldn't care that he was speaking to the LDS. But he sounds more clueless than usual here.
posted by zarq at 11:09 AM on March 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Arpaio is 83? I can't believe people can run on pure idiocy and hatred for so long.

So long as you're brutalizing criminals, latinos and black people.
posted by Talez at 11:10 AM on March 19, 2016


Hillary Clinton's Big Climate Change Accomplishment Was Actually a Huge Failure(Mother Jones)

So it was pretty strange to hear her comments on Tuesday night. In her first answer on climate change, Clinton said, "I have been on the forefront of dealing with climate change starting in 2009 when President Obama and I crashed a meeting with the Chinese and got them to sign up to the first international agreement to combat climate change that they'd ever joined."

In reality, the sour legacy of Copenhagen has haunted international climate negotiations ever since. It's now widely believed that the United States never wanted a legally binding climate deal in Copenhagen at all—even though the Democrats controlled the Congress at the time and may have been able to successfully ratify the treaty—opting instead for a mostly empty pledge of billions of dollars in aid to developing nations. Among environmentalists, Clinton has retained only a mediocre reputation on climate change as a result.

Her Copenhagen comment wasn't just a poor choice of wording, because she brought it up again later in the debate. Climate activists on Twitter weren't psyched.

posted by yertledaturtle at 11:12 AM on March 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sanders is wrong about the lawsuit we filed after our son's murder in Newtown.

Oh man, I'm sure the campaign is aware of this by now. His stance on gun control has been a not-insignificant complaint. I hope he responds to this personally.
posted by teponaztli at 11:15 AM on March 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


This case is about a particular weapon, Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians.

Good for them for saying this. The AR-15 should never have been sold to civilians. It's known for "lego modding" which means that the gun can be easily modified to blur the line between civilian and military functionality.
posted by zarq at 11:19 AM on March 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Mormons have a really horrible reputation with many Jews for a whole bunch of reasons.

i actually think he's not being clueless, weirdly - jews don't much like mormons, but mormons love jews in a very single white female sort of way, so telling utah that a jewish person who lives in utah likes them, it hits a few different places mormons like to congratulate themselves over. i still think he's losing badly in utah and is absolutely not their type of candidate, but that specific part was likely not a misstep as weird as it sounds.
posted by nadawi at 11:21 AM on March 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Probably should have said "Mormon institutions" rather than "Mormons" in my comment above.
posted by zarq at 11:22 AM on March 19, 2016


Interesting. That makes a lot of sense, nadawi.
posted by zarq at 11:23 AM on March 19, 2016


Ugh. I am arguing with a Nazi on twitter - that thinks Soros is funding the protests against Trump.
Trump supporters seem to be incapable of believing that people actually disagree and dislike Trump enough to protest against him of their own volition.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:23 AM on March 19, 2016


because the mormons are staffed up to quite a high level with lay people, the line between the institution and the members is fuzzier i think than most religions. a lot of the (very legitimate) complaints are actions that members took that the institution didn't do well enough to guard against, so i think it's fair to blame the congregation and the organization both for a lot of those failures.
posted by nadawi at 11:26 AM on March 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


How Donald Trump Bent Television To His Will

dialetheia, I appreciate your effort, but could you please at least do a quick ctrl-f for headlines before posting?
posted by one_bean at 11:26 AM on March 19, 2016


Trump consults advisers.
posted by bardophile at 11:27 AM on March 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Does anyone have a handle on protestors or activists who are providing live updates to the Arizona protest? This correspondent is following the road blockage, but I'm wondering if there are specific hashtags or users I should be watching who are closer to the location.
posted by Anonymous at 11:31 AM on March 19, 2016


I am arguing with a Nazi that thinks Soros is funding the protests against Trump.

It's not just the extremists who think that. I had to calmly and cooly walk my Fox news addicted relatives through the planned Chicago protests to explain that it wasn't organized by Soros. Mom seemed to see that what I was saying made much more sense, not so sure about her husband. While he has some pretty conservative views, he doesn't usually buy into conspiracy theories and the like. But Soros is the current boogey man on the Right, much like the Koch brothers on the Left. If there's any organization of any sort, surely one of them is behind it.
posted by imbri at 11:38 AM on March 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


How, even, ahhgrar... I mean, you can be a Trump supporter and all that but surely even they must understand that people are going to be angry enough to protest ALL BY THEMSELVES some dude who's calling whole races 'rapists', saying things that even most Republicans think are wingnuttish, threatening to build walls that are so unthinkably ridiculous that even the material engineer types are writing sarcastic thinkpieces about what percentage of the total national cement output would have to be diverted, etc....
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:48 AM on March 19, 2016


tivalasvegas, I think you are underestimating the disconnect between the media consumed by conservatives and liberals and the effect this has on their perceptions of these events. You're watching people be indignant and Republicans criticize him and reading takedowns by material engineers. They're watching someone cite "statistics" about immigrant crime, hand-wave away Trump's more extreme comments as "jokes", and reading economists takedown Sanders's plans for single-payer healthcare. Not even just talking about Fox News--I'm talking about websites, blogs, the whole of it. I don't think there's much intersection at all.
posted by Anonymous at 11:55 AM on March 19, 2016


I guess. I mean, I understand that partisans operate in different media universes now -- when I was a young misguided lad, I too went through a semi-libertarian, National-Review-reading, everything-to-the-left-of-FOX-is-communism high school phase. But I was still willing to apply, like, imaginative empathy in tracing how liberals would react to a Thing. Like, I didn't think the protests against the Iraq War were not genuine responses!

I suppose the epistemic closure is just that much worse now. Sigh.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:07 PM on March 19, 2016


I think the issue is that they believe all the angry people are reacting that way because they are selfish and afraid someone will take away their handouts, or something similarly execrable.
posted by Anonymous at 12:09 PM on March 19, 2016


Trump consults advisers.

Never has the "Christ, what an asshole" universal New Yorker caption be more appropriate.
posted by Justinian at 12:19 PM on March 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


More than that... My relatives aren't Trump supporters (though I think he'll fall in line if Trump gets the nod, mom may just bow out of the presidential election for the first time in her life). They are, however, older (70s) midwestern white folks. They don't think of themselves as racist, but will admit to it if pushed ("I would cross the street if there was a group of black men, it's not fair or right, but it is what it is"). They could also be pushed to admit that there's systemic racism, but wouldn't quite know what to do with that thought. They're midwest polite and they really don't like the more overt racist things they've seen & heard in this campaign. You just don't say those sorts of things!

But, really, they are a bit racist. And they don't like seeing angry black men shutting down a political rally. The media they are seeing is, overwhelmingly, showing angry black folks and not angry white folks. They might see the black protester getting punched, but he's being carried away by police. He did something wrong. That is what they see when they see that clip, the don't see the white man punching. When it's pointed out, the white man, too, is wrong. But that's something that needs to be reiterated so that it sinks in. The media they see, doesn't do that. Instead it shows faces of angry black and brown folks. Over and over and over again. Which just reinforces the negative thoughts inside of people like my mom without them even realizing it, heck, they don't even really know that they carry those thoughts until they are forced to admit it.
posted by imbri at 12:21 PM on March 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


also:

I am arguing with a Nazi on twitter

Up until about three months ago I would've seen this and done a bit of side-eye at seeing a MeFite refer to some twitter troll as a Nazi.

When I saw that today, though -- I've just realized that I didn't bat an eye, I naturally assumed yertledaturtle was probably, in fact, in a tweetfight with a person with actual pro-nazi/fascist images and/or tweets.

In 2016.

America.

Seven months to the election.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:25 PM on March 19, 2016 [16 favorites]


The media they see, doesn't do that. Instead it shows faces of angry black and brown folks. Over and over and over again. Which just reinforces the negative thoughts inside of people like my mom without them even realizing it, heck, they don't even really know that they carry those thoughts until they are forced to admit it.

I think this ties in with the overall social segregation that people in the US, especially White people, live under. Growing up White, your eyes pass over the White faces (the "norm") and focus on the non-White. Discussions about race are with other White people. News commentary you watch and hear is all White people. Your background radiation is White, so the incursion of any non-White person into that psychological space is immediately noticeable. It's like when a discussion panel or a television show or a business makes the decision to consciously hire more women, someone complains there are women everywhere, and then when you actually count the number of women they're still like, 1 in 5. But the complainer is so used to seeing men that any woman in the space feels like a big deal. Then you add the messages we're sent about Black people and, well. That's the result.
posted by Anonymous at 12:31 PM on March 19, 2016


Every time I speak of the haters and losers I do so with great love and affection. They cannot help the fact that they were born fucked up!@realdonaldtrump in September 2014.
posted by My Dad at 12:35 PM on March 19, 2016




Some... have considered Mr. Perry...

Now John Kasich's really pissed. I think they're trolling him at this point.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:57 PM on March 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


You know that annoying kid whose hand shot up in class, and they really really wanted to answer, and teacher kept calling on everyone else even if they were not raising their hands and in some situations may have been actively picking their noses and Eager Kid was full-on verbalizing "ooh ooh pickmepickmeIKNOWIT PICK ME" and you half-wondered if they might be on the verge of wetting themselves?

That's John Kasich right now.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:02 PM on March 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


The media they see, doesn't do that. Instead it shows faces of angry black and brown folks. Over and over and over again. Which just reinforces the negative thoughts

Even establishment conservatives who oppose Trump still adopt a racist narrative about opposition to Trump. For example, Charles Krauthammer calls the people who protested Trump in Chicago "thuggish." AFAIK the word "thug" is a coded replacement for the N-word.

Makes it hard to sympathize with the establish with the mainstream GOP as some sort of Horatio Algernon-esque "party of free enterprise."

Fuck those guys.
posted by My Dad at 1:16 PM on March 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


When I saw that today, though -- I've just realized that I didn't bat an eye, I naturally assumed yertledaturtle was probably, in fact, in a tweetfight with a person with actual pro-nazi/fascist images and/or tweets.

$10 says it's an anime avatar. For some reason, all these Twitter Nazis like Chinese cartoons as their identifying image.
posted by theorique at 2:40 PM on March 19, 2016



Trump said he had a Jewish friend living in Utah who speaks highly of members of the LDS faith. And then he joked that he paid the tithing of some of his Mormon employees directly to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to avoid the temptation of taking the money.


I grew up Mormon and I have to agree that this is absolutely pitch-perfect Mormon button-pushing here. He mentions the Jews, who the Mormons have a very high regard for, indirectly compliments Mormons in general, uses "LDS faith" accurately rather than calling them Mormons, and makes a tithing joke that would probably work really well with them.

The only problem there, I think, is that I doubt his audience was more than half LDS. Reasons:

- Salt Lake City is only 41% LDS.
- Trump's anti-establishment message probably resonates more with the non-Mormons in the area than the Mormons (who are the establishment.)
- They love Mitt Romney.
- If there was any kind of Mormon attraction to Trump there would have been 200,000 people trying to get into that rally, not 2000.

So.... he probably offended half of his crowd by assuming they were Mormons.
posted by mmoncur at 2:44 PM on March 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


The guy I am arguing with has a hand raised in a nazi salute. I prefer not to spread his propaganda so I won't link it. His name is Eric Striker.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:54 PM on March 19, 2016




Some prominent Republicans have considered Mr. Perry as a possible independent candidate for the general election if Mr. Trump receives the party’s presidential nomination.

Wow, I had no idea Tyler Perry was a Republican.

I mean, I'm assuming.

There's no way that they mean Rick Perry, right?
posted by indubitable at 5:46 PM on March 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Joe Perry.
posted by box at 6:06 PM on March 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


Steve Perry?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:10 PM on March 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


Weirdly, that is not even the first time Tyler Perry has come up in this thread as a potential candidate on a Republican ticket.

It's a strange year.
posted by kyrademon at 6:12 PM on March 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


Look at @realDonaldTrump campaign manager @CLewandowski_ assaulting another person... #TrumpRally #Trump

He manhandled a Breitbart reporter, Breitbart waffled on defending her, and in the end she started an exodus.

Trump already made me feel sorry for Megyn Kelly, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio. Now I'm feeling sorry for Breitbart reporters. Fuck you, Trump. Fuck. You.
posted by Anonymous at 6:46 PM on March 19, 2016




The extent to which this shit is being normal used in the name of "balanced journalism", i.e. cowardice, is truly frightening.

If we are lucky and he does not win there's still a lot of damage done.
posted by Artw at 10:49 AM on March 20, 2016


I fear what will happen if he is somehow thwarted in his quest for the nomination. All those angry supporters are not going to just shrug their shoulders and take up crochet.
posted by GrammarMoses at 11:07 AM on March 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, if anyone had any doubts about how hard Obama would be stumping for the Democratic candidate, here's some reassurance.
posted by bardophile at 11:58 AM on March 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Refusing to look into the mirror at its own hand in the rise of Trumpism, the National Review instead provides a heartless indictment of the poor White middle class for the current state of the Republican electorate:

If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy — which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that. Nothing happened to them.

The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.

posted by localhuman at 11:59 AM on March 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


That's a bit much.
posted by Trochanter at 12:19 PM on March 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Holy motherfuck, National Review, if this venom is what a leading conservative publication is willing to put out about the conservative base, then no wonder Trump's inspired a populist uprising. ANY anti-establishment, populist leader would. I'm the last person to pretend White culture doesn't have issues, but that is FUCKED.

There are sharp parallels between the language used about rural Whites in this piece and the language that has long been used about impoverished non-Whites and immigrants, and it is a revealing illustration of the contempt many conservative leaders have for their base. Nurturing and exploiting White racism has been a long-held (and wildly successful) tactic of rich Southern politicians to prevent poor Whites from starting to draw connections between themselves and their poor Black neighbors. It's gotten easier and easier with passing centuries, and was basically formalized and expanded by the Republican Party through Nixon's Southern Strategy. It's pretty monstrous, not only through the enforcement of institutionalized racism but for the disregard it holds for the legitimate economic needs of the White voters it exploits. But crucial to its success is maintaining the polite fiction that they actually DO think their constituents are somehow "better" than those "thugs". This editorial kind of tears that apart.

Not that Trump is any different in his tactics--if anything, he's done a bang-up job of throwing the dog-whistle away and replacing it with a bullhorn. But his lack of establishment history means he doesn't carry with him the nagging suspicion of condescension. After all, he hasn't referred to his supporters' childbearing choices as "whelping".
posted by Anonymous at 12:45 PM on March 20, 2016


Here's a "liberal" take largely agreeing with Williamson. Contempt for poor white people is not the sole domain of the right wing, unfortunately.
posted by dialetheia at 1:26 PM on March 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


Capital moves faster than labor. Stupid labor.
posted by Trochanter at 1:27 PM on March 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Why poor people can't just pick up and move: "In each piece, the moral component is foregrounded: The working class refuses to move when things get tough because of either learned helplessness—“a conspiracy to give up,” Drum says—or because they cower in the face of difficult circumstances. (See David French’s condemnation of “how little effort most parents and their teen children made to improve their lives.”) Nobody in the pundit class, it seems, has attempted to actually understand how this country treats its poor—because while the suggestion to “go get a U-Haul” sounds simple, it’s an impossible task for somebody with no savings."
posted by dialetheia at 1:34 PM on March 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


Contempt for poor white people is not the sole domain of the right wing, unfortunately.

Oh, I'd never argue against that, we've turned shitting on rednecks into a sport. I found the NR article shocking because that kind of contempt for poor Whites is something progressives say the conservative elite have, but they've always done a damn good job of not airing it out in public. So this level of candor is . . . remarkable. Kind of indicates where some heads are at, and probably reflect the frustration that all that "dumb white trash" they've cultivated have found a bigger blowhard.
posted by Anonymous at 1:36 PM on March 20, 2016


it’s an impossible task for somebody with no savings."
And leads directly to fracturing of family bonds, small-scale cultural and civic institutions, and homogenization of American life - all things the soccons say they are concerned with.

Ya got scammed.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:43 PM on March 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


I was listening to a podcast recently that was exploring the "dumb white trash" sentiment that's being discussed above, and how it's long been historically deployed by the "narrating class" folks as perhaps one of the oldest American classic divide and conquer strategies. They interviewed an LSU prof who has a forthcoming book on the 400-year history of how elite white people have constructed the concept of white trash.

Seems like required election year reading to me.
posted by mostly vowels at 1:58 PM on March 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


> Look at @realDonaldTrump campaign manager @CLewandowski_ assaulting another person... #TrumpRally #Trump

Trump Praises The ‘Spirit’ Of Campaign Manager Who Became Physical At A Rally
posted by homunculus at 2:29 PM on March 20, 2016


> NYT story on protester punched at Trump rally fails to mention Trump has REPEATEDLY CONDONED VIOLENCE vs protesters. http://nyti.ms/21Bi9RC

Video of the assault.
posted by homunculus at 2:30 PM on March 20, 2016


And the guy doing the punching was Black. I'd love to hear his story.

They interviewed an LSU prof who has a forthcoming book on the 400-year history of how elite white people have constructed the concept of white trash.

Yeah, I think one of the only ways to move beyond dog-whistle politics to to emphasize the commonalities between the poor, regardless of race, especially in the way they're derided and needs ignored. The problem is that it's very difficult to do so and still validate that racism exists as its own dimension and persists irrespective of economic prosperity and has to be addressed as such. I don't know any modern politician who has done this and pulled it off.
posted by Anonymous at 2:44 PM on March 20, 2016


mostly vowels, do you remember which podcast that was? I'd be interested in listening to it.
posted by triggerfinger at 3:49 PM on March 20, 2016


How do people how think Clinton is being selected-not-elected etc feel now that Sanders is jumping on the superdelegate bandwagon with both feet?
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on March 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


He's not really saying anything out of line or all that controversial, is he? He thinks the superdelegates should vote in line with primary voters in their States.
posted by zarq at 4:02 PM on March 20, 2016


He's saying a lot of stuff. For example, "but if that is the factor, and it appears that I am the stronger candidate against Trump, I think you’re going to see some superdelegates saying, you know what? I like Hillary Clinton, but I want to win this thing. Bernie is our guy."

It's almost like he's a politician!
posted by Justinian at 4:18 PM on March 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


Here's an article about it: Sanders surprises with controversial superdelegate strategy.
posted by Justinian at 4:20 PM on March 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders is trying to win, and I cannot blame him for that. Having super delegates vote according to the votes of their states is more democratic in a way, but it's not at all clear to me that the super delegates are apportioned according the populations of their home states.

Clinton has been very strategic (one of the reasons that I support her) with respect to rounding up the support needed to win the nomination, and Sanders is playing catch up. Partly that is because he decided very late to run.

The super delegate system was created to prevent disasters like the McGovern candidacy and Dukakis candidacy from occurring. Like the Senate, it is simultaneously representative and undemocratic, and when it works it functions in somewhat the same way--to moderate the wild swings of political fashion. Maybe it's not the best system, but it is the one the candidates must navigate.
posted by haiku warrior at 4:22 PM on March 20, 2016


Sure, I'm criticizing him. But given how much shit Clinton has gotten for it it's ironic that Sanders is the one that appears to be hanging his hat on superdelegates... and I don't expect his supporters to care despite hitting Clinton with it like a sledgehammer.
posted by Justinian at 4:24 PM on March 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


Uhhh, not criticizing him. Sorry. NOT criticizing Sanders for his superdelegate strategy. Despite where I said the opposite.
posted by Justinian at 4:29 PM on March 20, 2016


He's no trying to assign them proportionally by popular vote in their states--that is the goal of some of his supporters, but if he did it that way he'd still be losing. He's trying to get all of them to defect.
“Absent Hillary getting out of the race, I think there’s no way that this race isn’t going to be very close in pledged delegates, even if we succeed,” Devine said. “The best outcome for us, given the nature of the system, is a very close advantage at the end."

Sanders’ superdelegate pitch will likely take the shape of both direct lobbying and a more formal pitch. Sanders’ campaign will argue that voter enthusiasm and holding to the populist principles of the party are on Sanders’ side. They’ll point to their massive, low-dollar online fundraising.

. . . .

“Let’s say you have a horse race to Philadelphia. Over the course of this race, I would like to think that folks who have made a commitment to Hillary Clinton will be saying, ‘Wait a second now, how’s this going to look in November?’” Kirk said. “He’s getting first time voters who are young and have a passionate enthusiasm I haven’t seen in politics in years. He’s also tapped into voters who are so disgusted with the process. Then you get the independents.”

“The stakes are so high in November, the superdelegates will feel a special responsibility this time around,” Kirk added.

And then in his Face the Nation interview, he argued superdelegates from states that went for him should be automatically assigned to him, and superdelegates in states that went to Clinton should also go for him because Momentum.
SANDERS: The whole concept of superdelegates is problematic.

But I would say that, in states where we have won by 20, 25 points, you know what? I think it might be good idea for superdelegates to listen to the people in their home state. I just talked to a person the other day who said, you know what, I am going to listen to my state, and if my state votes for you, Bernie, you're going to have my vote.

I think that -- I would hope that a lot of the superdelegates will take that factor into consideration.

DICKERSON: So, yes, that is a strategy you're pursuing?

SANDERS: Well, to say to a superdelegate, Bernie Sanders won your state by 20 or 30 points, you might want to listen to your state, I think that that is common sense and I think superdelegates should do that.

DICKERSON: But if they didn't -- if they didn't come from a state that you won, they shouldn't feel compelled to go for you?

SANDERS: Well, that's -- legally, they have their own decision to be made. They have their own right to make that decision.

But I would argue that many of these superdelegates, for them, what is most important, as it is for me and Secretary Clinton, by the way, is making sure that no Republican occupies the White House. And if people conclude by the end of this campaign, if we have the energy -- and it's an if -- if we win a number of states -- that's also an if -- but if that is the factor, and it appears that I am the stronger candidate against Trump, I think you're going to see some superdelegates saying, you know what? I like Hillary Clinton, but I want to win this thing. Bernie is our guy.
I mean, for a guy who made a big deal early in the campaign about how terrible superdelegates are, that's just shady.
posted by Anonymous at 5:29 PM on March 20, 2016


Well, he definitely looks like the candidate most likely to be shouting Get Off My Lawn!
posted by y2karl at 5:38 PM on March 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


If it makes Clinton supporters feel better, I'm pro-Bernie, but if Clinton wins the regular delegates, AND the popular vote (which she almost definitely will), Sanders has no business getting the nomination absent some emergency situation where Clinton is unable to stand in the general. It looks like Sanders is going to lose, that's too bad. But if he's going to lose, I'd prefer he'd lose respectably (not necessarily gracefully).
posted by skewed at 5:49 PM on March 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


What is shady is super-delegates announcing their decision to vote for Clinton ahead of time and in such a vocal way as to both influence undecided voters to side with Clinton and also remind Sanders voters that their voice doesn't matter, because it will get negated. What is shady is the media helping Clinton's campaign by implementing that strategy. Equating those real and serious problems with what Sanders actually says in the interview is also shady as hell.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:56 PM on March 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's TOTALLY different!

And then two comments later...
posted by Justinian at 6:04 PM on March 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


Do you have any numbers that support the your assertion that the mere discussion of superdelegates has discouraged Sanders voters from voting? Because in the discussion I heard it was mostly "superdelegates are unfair to Bernie" and "superdelegates follow the popular vote and have never tipped an election away from someone with a lead in pledged delegates."

Your assertion is based in a feeling that there exists a media cabal aimed towards discouraging pro-Sanders people from voting because of the looming threat of superdelegates. Meanwhile, over here Sanders is straight up saying he's down with overturning a pledged delegate lead with superdelegates.
posted by Anonymous at 6:10 PM on March 20, 2016


mostly vowels, do you remember which podcast that was? I'd be interested in listening to it.

It was a small section of the recent On the Media podcast:

The National Review's savage takedown of the Trump-supporting "white working class" (excerpted here) was stunning in its contempt, calling them lazy drug addicts, comparing them to animals, even saying that they deserve to die. Though it stopped short of saying it, the implication was clear: these people are white trash.

It's a term we've heard plenty of times before, often as a dismissal, sometimes as a badge of honor. But the notion of "white trash" has been around for a long time. Nancy Isenberg, author of the forthcoming book, White Trash: The 400-Year Untold Story of Class in America, argues that the myth of America as a classless nation has obscured an ugly truth: that this country was founded on a disdain for the poor that has never been fully addressed. Brooke speaks with Isenberg about America's uneasy relationship with class and how the National Review's recent article was echoing a theme that is at least four centuries old.

posted by mostly vowels at 6:19 PM on March 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


From Face the Nation:

The theory of your campaign and of your presidency has been to create a movement, to create momentum, to gather people. But she seems to be able to gather more people behind her message than you. Isn't that a threat to the theory of the Sanders campaign?

This is my thing about Sanders and the followers. There is no revolution. I don't know why he couldn't change his message to confront what the challenges will be to the campaign and his Presidency based on that.
posted by zutalors! at 6:21 PM on March 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Your assertion is based in a feeling

Which was the point of the Bernie-or-Bernadette thread. So much of the anti-Clinton stuff is based on feeling that she's just an evil, terrible person even when other people who are doing the exact same thing are not tarred with the same brush.

I'm not talking about all criticism of Clinton, obviously, because god knows I have enough of that of my own. But I think lungful of dragon's comment is a perfect example of the kind of thing Clinton is facing.
posted by Justinian at 6:25 PM on March 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


Also with this:

I mean, what you're really talking about is, she did very well in the Deep South. She creamed us in Mississippi and Alabama and South Carolina. I wish I didn't have to say this, but everything being equal, no Democrat right now -- I hope that changes, and I think it will -- is going to win those elections, those states in the general election.


how is this not saying that those Deep South votes don't matter because their states will go Republican?
posted by zutalors! at 6:25 PM on March 20, 2016 [2 favorites]




Did they beat anybody up? Maybe they should start beating people up; it works for Trump.
posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on March 20, 2016


Gang, we've been here before. While Sanders' approach to super delegates might be news, the "Sanders' supporters are hypocrites," and "Clinton's supporters are gaming the system" is old stuff. So maybe we can avoid that kind of editorializing and stick to a dispassionate discussion.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:36 PM on March 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


How is the Seattle venue for Sanders at capacity if the upper level isn't open? Did they vastly underestimate turnout? Or are those seats so bad as to not be worth opening?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:41 PM on March 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Media Silent as Bernie Sanders Packs Seattle Arena Beyond Capacity (LIVE VIDEO)

Do they cover Clinton's rallies? Do they cover Cruz's rallies? I think right now the only rallies they're covering are the ones where people are getting their faces stomped on.
posted by Anonymous at 6:44 PM on March 20, 2016


Seattle Center staff confirms attendance at #BernieinSeattle is 10,312 inside, 5,500 outside, another 1500 were outside but left.

I believe capacity is about 15,000, but I'm not sure what happened there.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:45 PM on March 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Like, the headline carries the implicit assumption they should be covering that rally and aren't because of anti-Bernie forces. But I don't think they'd cover that rally if it was Clinton or Cruz, either (well, they might with Cruz because who'd expect him to pack a stadium in Seattle). I think right now they're just interested in Trump.

(and I'm not one to judge, I've been following where Trump is going, but I have no idea where Clinton is and I'm actually going to vote for her)
posted by Anonymous at 6:48 PM on March 20, 2016


Could it be an issue with security and the Secret Service preventing people from getting inside in a timely manner?
posted by haiku warrior at 6:48 PM on March 20, 2016


I think Hillary's in AZ, or was recently. She just appeared with Gabby Giffords.
posted by zutalors! at 6:56 PM on March 20, 2016


Media Silent as Bernie Sanders Packs Seattle Arena Beyond Capacity (LIVE VIDEO)

AP's Big Story Feature: Sanders' West Coast campaign makes key stops in Washington". Gives turnout numbers.

"Media silent."

Yeah, not so much.
posted by zarq at 7:49 PM on March 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Followup on the Utah thing:

Poll: Utah would vote for a Democrat over Trump

This might be the first time in the almost 30 years I've been voting that my presidential vote actually counts...
posted by mmoncur at 7:57 PM on March 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


Like, the headline carries the implicit assumption they should be covering that rally and aren't because of anti-Bernie forces.

It's now pretty old news that the media has been startlingly biased in its coverage of the primaries. The media has spent a lot of time focused on Trump and has basically ignored Sanders. Here are two interesting pieces making this point (the first is from January, the second from last week).

Presidential Media Blackouts: Not Just Conspiracy
Measuring Donald Trump's Mammoth Advantage in Free Media

There are lots, lots more if you do a little looking around. In fact, you can find articles talking about a "Bernie blackout" as far back as October 2015, at least (here's one).

Regarding super-delegates, I wonder to what extent the media has been ignoring Sanders because they thought Clinton was such a foregone conclusion and to what extent the media has been ignoring Sanders because it would be bad for the owners if he won. I don't know exactly why the media hasn't covered Sanders and has covered Trump. But I think it's had a pretty large effect. Consider the counterfactual where the media coverage for Trump and Sanders is flipped. Is Trump still winning the Republican primary? Is Sanders still losing the Democratic primary? I think the answer to both is probably "no."

I think the super-delegate mess has fed into the narrative that Clinton was a sure thing. So early in the race, there was no reason to cover Sanders. And now there is also no reason to cover Sanders because he's so far behind. (My guess is that this is more or less what a lungful of dragon had in mind.)

Anyway, I wish Sanders had repudiated super-delegates in a stronger way. He should have said that they are undemocratic and that they ought to simply vote in a way that reflects the pledged delegate count. He skirts around it in the Face the Nation interview -- in the sort of expert-politician style that I really, really hate. He never actually says that the super-delegates in states that he lost to Clinton ought to vote for him. He only says that some probably will if he is looking like the stronger candidate against Trump by the time the convention comes around.

Taking a serious look at it, though, I don't think Sanders has a very compelling electability argument. Earlier this primary season, I said that the states to pay attention to were the ones that were close in the 2012 Presidential Election: North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Wisconsin. I thought it might turn out that Clinton would be ahead in the delegate count due to a very strong showing in the South and that Sanders might win many of the swing states. But Clinton has been very strong in the swing states (of the eight states from my list that have voted so far, Clinton won four decisively and another two by a small margin), and consequently, I think the pro-Sanders electability argument is not very persuasive. I voted for him. I'm proud to have done so. I would love to see him elected President. But if I were a super-delegate who really cared about electability in the general, right now, I wouldn't be voting for Sanders.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 7:59 PM on March 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


What if, we tried an election where primary results are kept secret until the national convention
posted by Apocryphon at 8:30 PM on March 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


That would be awesome, hilarious, and completely unworkable.
posted by Justinian at 9:06 PM on March 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


The super-delegates existed in the Democratic nomination process when Sanders decided to run as a Democratic candidate, when he hasn't served as one in the Senate (although he has caucused with the Dems). It would have been foolish for him to have attacked that nomination system outright. Them's the rules, all that. Don't like the rules, don't run as a Democrat, work for change within the party otherwise. The party is not the government.
posted by raysmj at 9:06 PM on March 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


This comment up above kinda blew my mind thusly:
And that's where I think the generational divide on Bernie/Hillary comes to play. If you don't actually remember anybody fighting for things like universal healthcare, or better conditions for the poor and working classes, or reaching out to minority communities, it makes sense to believe that the only reason that things aren't better is that nobody has ever wanted it before (or been good enough, smart enough, whatever enough).

It's possible that younger voters - I mean, I'm 25; I was three years old when Hillary was pushing for healthcare in '93; I was 15 when she was in the Senate. It's possible that younger voters honestly don't know about her progressive bonafides. It's always seemed to me that she was broadly conservative, except on the singular topic of women's rights. "stood before representatives of nations like Uganda and Russia and said that gay rights are human rights" is an achievement that absolutely changes my view of her because I literally didn't know that.

I think it was actually Obama who wrote this, well before he was elected, or something like this:

"When we interrogate presidential candidates, ask detailed questions, we must have a realistic view of the answers. We think we're asking, 'What will you do in the future?' As if we're voting for a course of action. And sometimes we are. But the truth is, we have no idea what Situations the president will walk into. There's too much going on; even with a year of campaigning, we couldn't ask enough questions to determine what they'll do. Instead, what we are trying to find out is: 'What kind of person are you? What values will you be guided by?' That goes double for foreign policy and war administration, where the situation is shaped by information that is classified. Neither the candidate nor the voter, however well-informed, can say for sure what they'll do in the hot seat.
What we should look for, then, is some indication that the candidate agrees with our values, and our worldview; that he'll make judgment calls that are similar to what we would make. That's all we can look for."

I am reminded of that idea in every one of these threads.

My opinion of Hillary was formed mostly on her run as Secretary of State, and that's a mixed bag. On the one hand: hawkish and interventionist. (Tho I don't know if there are any more peaceable candidates around.) On the other hand, she's the best diplomat we could ever ask for. She's staggeringly, formidably well-informed, and incredibly graceful on the global stage. But what values guide her? I don't know.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 9:45 PM on March 20, 2016 [9 favorites]




Did they beat anybody up? Maybe they should start beating people up

Jesus.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:54 PM on March 20, 2016


Rainbo Vagrant, I am not much older than you and I was also operating under the impression that Clinton was a conservative ice queen. It wasn't until I started doing more research into her political history that I realized how often she was at the leading edge of progressive issues. We look back now at things that she was involved in and we think nothing went far enough. But once you start researching the history of bills passed, stances taken, laws written, you find out that she was pushing for a lot more progressive options and ratcheted things down so something would get passed.

There are two profiles of Clinton that are extremely different in tone but I felt offered insight into Clinton now.

The first is a profile of Clinton called Hillary Clinton Wants To Talk To You About Love And Kindness. It is absolutely pro-Clinton--but the actual events and speeches it references from decades ago paint a very different, and warmer picture of what I think the we see Clinton as now.

The second is The Lady Macbeth of Little Rock, a piece from the American Spectator that originally came out in August 1992 before Bill was elected. I find this informative for two reasons. First, its portrayal of Clinton as a radical leftist activist. It is easy to forget now that the reason the conservatives hated Clinton was because they saw her as a lefty feminist career woman who was intent on destroying the True US American Family. It is a story diametrically opposed to the story I learned as a young progressive.

Second, it is distressing to look at these criticisms about her personality and character that were perpetuated by the Right and realize they're now being parroted by the Left. It's all there: she's a liar, she's unfeeling, she's power-hungry, she's corporatist, she's corrupt, she's underhanded. This stuff started in the early 90s with the Republican hate machine, and has now been repeated so often that we take it as the gospel truth. Except these days instead of serving the leftist desires of radical feminists, she's serving the conservative desires of Wall Street overlords.

Two very different profiles, portraying two very different women. Both offering a view of history that give a glimpse into how we came to think of Clinton now. Who knows the exact truth? Humans contain multitudes. But I think there is a lesson here about the powerful effect a media narrative can have across generations, and how little any of us really know about the character of someone we've never met.
posted by Anonymous at 10:12 PM on March 20, 2016


Honestly, it's frustrating that people on the left keep referring to her as unfeeling, power-hungry, etc. It makes it hard to voice any real criticisms of her because there's this sea of bullshit you have to shout over if you want to make a point, and you can end up sounding like you're just adding more bullshit.

But then, that's also the frustrating thing about how a lot of people talk about politicians - it's not enough to simply prefer one over another. That preference has to be defended and exaggerated and blown into this black-and-white issue wherein a person could only possibly support the other person if they're mistaken, willfully blind to obvious flaws that they refuse to acknowledge. Their support for the other person is almost an attack on you and your values.

It wouldn't be so bad if we didn't have this horse race that stretches on for as long as it does. I think there's actually a majority of people who do simply prefer one candidate over the other. But anxieties get frayed as time goes on, and everything gets bigger and bigger. This election is especially bad because it's basically been down to two candidates the whole time (who was super pumped about O'Malley?). And we've had the frustration with the Democratic party that's been building for a while. That's why it's so disappointing to see people resort to "Hilary is just calculating," because I think the frustration is coming from a very real and important place, but it keeps misdirected into this tired, sexist trope that ends up overshadowing the problems with Democratic party politics that (at least I think) are actually newsworthy.
posted by teponaztli at 10:46 PM on March 20, 2016 [14 favorites]


I think Trump should pivot to the center for the general by losing the wall and adopting John Oliver's waffle iron plan.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:41 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


There was no Republican establishment after all: Can we please retire the notion that Donald Trump is hijacking someone else’s party?
Did the pillars of the Establishment fail to turn back the Trump insurgency because they have no balls? Because they have no credibility? Because they have too little support from voters in their own party? Because they don’t even know who those voters are or how to speak their language? To some degree, all these explanations are true. Though the Republican Establishment is routinely referenced as a potential firewall in almost every media consideration of Trump’s unexpected rise, it increasingly looks like a myth, a rhetorical device, or, at best, a Potemkin village. It has little power to do anything beyond tardily raising stop-Trump money that it spends neither wisely nor well and generating an endless torrent of anti-Trump sermons for publications that most Trump voters don’t read. The Establishment’s prize creation, Marco Rubio — a bot candidate programmed with patriotic Reaganisms, unreconstructed Bush-Cheney foreign-policy truculence, a slick television vibe, and a dash of ethnicity — was the biggest product flop to be marketed by America’s Fortune 500 stratum since New Coke.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:47 AM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


John Oliver's waffle iron plan

I love what John Oliver's doing -- he's the only one from the Great Daily Show Diaspora that I continue to watch -- but sometimes his capper jokes are very much swing-and-a-miss for me. Perhaps I am overly cynical these days, but the fake (or 'fake'? I don't even know any more) Ladder Company product placement earlier in that episode followed by the it's-just-a-joke plug for the apparently-real waffle-iron company had me scratching my head more than laughing.

Still, more mockery of the Short-fingered Vulgar Business Yam is always welcome.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:52 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]




Though the Republican Establishment is routinely referenced as a potential firewall in almost every media consideration of Trump’s unexpected rise, it increasingly looks like a myth, a rhetorical device, or, at best, a Potemkin village. It has little power to do anything beyond tardily raising stop-Trump money that it spends neither wisely nor well and generating an endless torrent of anti-Trump sermons for publications that most Trump voters don’t read.

Whether or not they have the power they think (wish?) they do, there's definitely a cluster of pundits, consultants, journalists, and other operatives within the GOP who believe themselves to be the "True Conservatives" and seek to exclude Trump.

They have been stymied at many different turns by the primary voters and caucus participants, extensive usage of social media, Trump's own skill at holding events and self-promotion, and the traditional media sharks smelling the blood of a big story in the water and wanting to increase their ratings. The "GOP Establishment" is not as powerful as it thinks, but it might be powerful enough to throw major roadblocks in Trump's way.
posted by theorique at 5:23 AM on March 21, 2016


Romney and his Establishment peers have also made a big show of branding Trump a traitor to GOP values because he feigned ignorance of his fan David Duke and took his sweet time before disavowing Duke’s alma mater, the Ku Klux Klan. But just over a year ago the Republican congressman Steve Scalise of Louisiana conceded that he had committed an even greater infraction than Trump’s by speaking before a Duke-affiliated white-supremacy group in 2002. Scalise had been invited to do so by two longtime Duke aides, at least one of whom was a friend, but he nonetheless maintained, just as Trump did, that he had no idea who these people were or what they stood for. Even hard-line conservatives doubted Scalise’s story — Charles Krauthammer called it “implausible,” and Erick Erickson asked, “How the hell does somebody show up at a David Duke–organized event in 2002 and claim ignorance?” — but the incident was hardly an impediment to Scalise’s advancement in the GOP. He was rewarded with the No. 3 post in the House leadership, majority whip, which he retains today. That Scalise’s boss, Paul Ryan, would glom onto Trump’s Duke brouhaha as a cue to grandstand about how Republicans must reject all groups that traffic in bigotry — “There can be no evasion and no games,” he lectured—is as laughable as it is shameless.
It's a really good article.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:30 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]



Did they beat anybody up? Maybe they should start beating people up

Jesus.


I read that original comment as bourne out of frustration that the violence is what is getting coverage, not an actual call to violence at Bernie Sanders rallies.
posted by zutalors! at 6:10 AM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


Lauren Fox: Trump-Cruz Effect: Cook Political Report Moves 10 House Races To Dem Favor
In a blog post Friday, analyst David Wasserman wrote "Democrats would need to pick up 30 seats, a daunting challenge given the GOP's immense redistricting advantage and the vaporization of swing districts. But all cycle, Democrats have daydreamed about Republicans nominating an extremely polarizing presidential candidate, and suddenly it's almost certain they will get their wish."

According to Wasserman, Trump or Cruz at the top of the ticket could put a few kinds of districts into play for Democrats. For one, any district with a large Hispanic population could be a liability for Republicans. And, Wasserman says that "high-education" and "high-income" districts may also be more averse to Trump or Cruz.

That puts several tight races in California and Florida up for grabs.

"So many assumptions have been wrong this cycle that it's difficult to be definitive about another: that the House majority won't be in play in 2016," Wasserman wrote.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:39 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Cruz or Trump could have a major affect on down-ballot races from Virginia to California"

Effect. EFFECT. E.F.F.E.C.T.

It's not so much that I'm nitpicky about typos (although I am, to be honest) but that they are indicative of the rush-to-print, publish-first-analyze-later breathlessness that is just not helpful in an already feverish political climate.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:44 AM on March 21, 2016 [6 favorites]






Effect. EFFECT. E.F.F.E.C.T.

P.A.S.S.I.O.N.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:35 AM on March 21, 2016


E * MO * TION
posted by cortex at 9:05 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Grieving the white void: "I had no language for what I was experiencing, only shame. I was a conscious, left-leaning, intelligent, and compassionate White person. How could I allow the casual racism going on around me to continue unchecked? How could I, too, be host to that parasitic racism?"
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:07 AM on March 21, 2016


Is there any organization that's strategically encouraging donations to the most flippable Senate races? Like planning to collect 'donate' links for the ten Dem candidates in the best position to take a currently Republican seat and share them widely?
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:17 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hillary worked with Google CEO to keep Bengazhi‬ video from public

Corporate collusion like this is likely why we still haven't seen the Goldman Sachs and other speech transcripts we were promised by Clinton's campaign.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:20 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


where did they promise?
posted by zutalors! at 9:23 AM on March 21, 2016


Gawker with Trump's record of failure after failure.

(Bonus yuks for the glove pic)
posted by Trochanter at 9:29 AM on March 21, 2016


She promised to look into it. And then the conclusion of that look was, "I'll release my private speeches if everybody else releases their private speeches."
posted by Drinky Die at 9:37 AM on March 21, 2016


Yea...so no speeches promised.
posted by zutalors! at 9:42 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is there any organization that's strategically encouraging donations to the most flippable Senate races?

Easiest thing to do there is just donate to the DSCC and let them strategize.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:52 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hillary Clinton's secret Libya brag sheet -- before ISIS moved in
(various interesting things on @wikileaks from Clinton's emails)
posted by jeffburdges at 9:52 AM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'share' is." Meanwhile, pay no attention to the collusion between Google executives and a Presidential candidate. No quid pro quo anticipated there, I'm sure!

"Tablets? Cool. No taxes? Awesome."
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:55 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


"I'll release my private speeches if everybody else releases their private speeches."

It's morally questionable and also politically dumb. I mean, this is a speech to Goldman Sachs -- I assume there were, y'know, at least one or two Republicans there who have some sort of access to the transcripts? So does she want some damaging thing to come out at the general, or now when the Republicans are rather distracted? It's either bad enough that it would hurt her in the general election, or it isn't -- in which case just rip the damn bandaid off.

This drives me bonkers. I feel like Sec. Clinton's campaign is so tightly wound that they panic at the thought of Losing The Cycle for a couple days, longer-term consequences be damned. It's not smart. Get all the crap out now so you can dismiss it in six months as old news.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:56 AM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


roomthreeseventeen, I think that is a powerful article that deserves an FPP all to itself.
posted by Anonymous at 9:59 AM on March 21, 2016


schroedinger, will do.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:00 AM on March 21, 2016


The overwhelming likelihood is that there's no campaign-ending smoking gun in the speech transcripts, just a party bag of stuff to quote out of context to make her look bad. Primary voters have been so concerned about the speech transcripts that they've only given her a lead of over 1 million votes and 300 delegates. But yeah her campaign is hella dumb amirite
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:02 AM on March 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


Is there any organization that's strategically encouraging donations to the most flippable Senate races? Like planning to collect 'donate' links for the ten Dem candidates in the best position to take a currently Republican seat and share them widely?

It's not really a secret. Probably it makes sense to hold off until the fall before deciding whom to support financially, though -- it could be that, say, Russ Feingold will be running away with it in Wisconsin and your money's better spent on North Carolina, etc.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:04 AM on March 21, 2016


E.F.F.E.C.T.

A smooth operator operating correctly.

It's either bad enough that it would hurt her in the general election, or it isn't -- in which case just rip the damn bandaid off.

My guess is there's nothing there. I mean besides things that can be taken out of context which is essentially anything she said past "Hello, my name is Hillary Clinton". But there always has to be something bubbling, so I feel like she may be just letting her opponents go on a wild goose chase, trying to expose the content of the speeches and waste time on that. Because there has to be something, right? Everybody loves a conspiracy. So okay, you honed in on this nonsense, I'll let you spin your wheels trying to dig into it since I know nothing's there. In which case she would indeed be a smooth operator, operating correctly.
posted by cashman at 10:13 AM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's not really a secret. Probably it makes sense to hold off until the fall before deciding whom to support financially, though -- it could be that, say, Russ Feingold will be running away with it in Wisconsin and your money's better spent on North Carolina, etc.

It's not so much just "which seats are they?" - I've found a few articles about this (though that link is particularly good, thanks!) - but I was thinking more along the lines of a specific advocacy campaign, saying "hey, all you people who crowdfunded Sanders into a much stronger position than anyone every dreamed - how about tossing some of that populist power in THIS direction too?"
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:14 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Donald Trump reveals foreign policy team in meeting with The Washington Post: “Walid Phares, who you probably know. Ph.D., adviser to the House of Representatives. He’s a counter-terrorism expert," Trump said. "Carter Page, Ph.D. George Papadopoulos. He’s an oil and energy consultant. Excellent guy. The honorable Joe Schmitz, [was] inspector general at the Department of Defense. General Keith Kellogg. And I have quite a few more. But that’s a group of some of the people that we are dealing with. We have many other people in different aspects of what we do. But that’s pretty representative group.”
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:14 AM on March 21, 2016


The overwhelming likelihood is that there's no campaign-ending smoking gun in the speech transcripts, just a party bag of stuff to quote out of context to make her look bad. Primary voters have been so concerned about the speech transcripts that they've only given her a lead of over 1 million votes and 300 delegates. But yeah her campaign is hella dumb amirite

Perhaps a little transparency is what those of us who are concerned about this are asking for? The straw man that those of us are asking for transparency - think her campaign is dumb is an interesting assertion not at all connected to the request to see the transcripts.

In most social, political and economic transactions it is reasonable to do due diligence before making important decisions. There are many of use who think that what she says to large corporations like Goldman Sachs in her speeches may have an influence on her policies. So, it is not unreasonable to ask that she release the transcripts before deciding she is a candidate that deserves our vote.
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:20 AM on March 21, 2016 [9 favorites]



The straw man that those of us are asking for transparency - think her campaign is dumb is an interesting assertion not at all connected to the request to see the transcripts.



well that was a response to something someone actually said

"I'll release my private speeches if everybody else releases their private speeches."

It's morally questionable and also politically dumb.

posted by zutalors! at 10:23 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also:

I feel like Sec. Clinton's campaign is so tightly wound that they panic at the thought of Losing The Cycle for a couple days, longer-term consequences be damned. It's not smart.


Transparency is great, but the Clinton campaign has probably noticed that most of the people making a big deal about the transcripts are people who've already indicated they would vote for a basket full of house centipedes before they'd vote for Hillary Clinton, so I can't really blame them for deciding there's no net benefit to releasing the speeches.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:27 AM on March 21, 2016 [10 favorites]


Elizabeth Warren just went HAM on Trump on Facebook (not sure how to link to a post, but it's on her public page):
Let’s be honest – Donald Trump is a loser. Count all his failed businesses. See how he kept his father’s empire afloat by cheating people with scams like Trump University and by using strategic corporate bankruptcy (excuse me, bankruptcies) to skip out on debt. Listen to the experts who’ve concluded he’s so bad at business that he might have more money today if he’d put his entire inheritance into an index fund and just left it alone.

Trump seems to know he’s a loser. His embarrassing insecurities are on parade: petty bullying, attacks on women, cheap racism, and flagrant narcissism. But just because Trump is a loser everywhere else doesn’t mean he’ll lose this election. People have been underestimating his campaign for nearly a year – and it’s time to wake up.

People talk about how "this is the most important election" in our lifetime every four years, and it gets stale. But consider what hangs in the balance. Affordable college. Accountability for Wall Street. Healthcare for millions of Americans. The Supreme Court. Big corporations and billionaires paying their fair share of taxes. Expanded Social Security. Investments in infrastructure and medical research and jobs right here in America. The chance to turn our back on the ugliness of hatred, sexism, racism and xenophobia. The chance to be a better people.

More than anyone we’ve seen before come within reach of the presidency, Donald Trump stands ready to tear apart an America that was built on values like decency, community, and concern for our neighbors. Many of history’s worst authoritarians started out as losers – and Trump is a serious threat. The way I see it, it’s our job to make sure he ends this campaign every bit the loser that he started it.
Regardless of how the nomination fight turns out, Dems will have the equivalent of the '92 Dream Team roasting Trump on a spit all summer and fall.
posted by sallybrown at 10:28 AM on March 21, 2016 [20 favorites]


I did not see that. So I am wrong that it is a total straw man.
I personally do not think her campaign is dumb because she is not releasing them.

The rest of my argument for the release the transcripts remains. Clinton has to earn my vote. And transparency is one of the criteria I have for making decisions about voting.
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:30 AM on March 21, 2016


Transparency is great, but the Clinton campaign has probably noticed that most of the people making a big deal about the transcripts are people who've already indicated they would vote for a basket full of house centipedes before they'd vote for Hillary Clinton, so I can't really blame them for deciding there's no net benefit to releasing the speeches.

I do not know? I think perhaps there are a lot of people on the sidelines that actually may make a decision about whether to vote for her not if they think she is hiding something in the speeches? I have no idea what the political consequences of it are. I know what I base my own decisions on are, and one of them is how transparent the candidate is.
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:35 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think Warren can clearly see nothing makes Trump crazier than a woman besting him in some way. Perhaps this is her (much cannier) version of Romney's speech.
posted by sallybrown at 10:35 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Let’s be honest – Donald Trump is a loser.

I like Warren a lot, but I don't like that she called him a "loser" - it feels like stooping to his level.
posted by zutalors! at 10:35 AM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I like Warren a lot, but I don't like that she called him a "loser" - it feels like stooping to his level.

Much like the 'tiny hands' thing, this is a specifically calculated move to poke Trump and make him say something stupid in anger.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:41 AM on March 21, 2016 [14 favorites]


Is it stooping to his level if it's an attempt to bait and trap him? He seems to attach meaning and authority to the word "loser" in a way that sets it apart from more intelligent critiques.
posted by sallybrown at 10:42 AM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Pumped for Trump on Reveal PodcastStream it here on Soundcloud

Interesting interviews with Trump Supporters and why they support him. My takeaway based on the podcast, but also my own readings is the economy shouldn't be ignored but there's definitely a cultural/racial component to this. His supporters are not only feel like they are losing ground or ignored, but betrayed by the Establishment. However, it's not exactly the same Establishment as Sanders and his supporters are rallying against. It's not or not only an Establishment of the economic elite, BUT an Establishment of the cultural elite. It sounds like to them there's a huge shift in the country that started with the election of President Obama that has continued with runaway "political correctness", BLM, and the taking down of the Confederate flag. That "political correctness" has created racial division but has also blocked the necessary action needed to solve problems like illegal immigration and terrorism. And in order to unblock this, a strong leader is required.

Now, some have been saying that Trump support is based mainly on the economy, but I'm not entirely sure. A lot of people have gotten the short end of the stick in the last few years, but not everyone has turned into a Trump Supporter. And even if it is mainly economic, at best you can say that the majority of Trump Supporters are not actively racist and are not only willing to overlook the racist parts of his campaign, but are willing to believe that getting rid of undocumented immigrants will fix their situation. And, I think even if you feel that immigration law should be enforced it doesn't justify the outright racism and hatred by Trump and his supporters.
posted by FJT at 10:43 AM on March 21, 2016


Yeah, I still think it's stooping to his level. The "small hands" thing I associate with John Oliver, who's a comedian, and Rubio, who shouldn't have been using it.
posted by zutalors! at 10:44 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


I like Warren a lot, but I don't like that she called him a "loser" - it feels like stooping to his level.

Much like the 'tiny hands' thing, this is a specifically calculated move to poke Trump and make him say something stupid in anger.


Also, note how Warren goes data-wonk with the word. She lines out how he is a person who loses, rather than simply using it as an epithet.
posted by Etrigan at 10:45 AM on March 21, 2016 [14 favorites]


Is it stooping to his level if it's an attempt to bait and trap him? He seems to attach meaning and authority to the word "loser" in a way that sets it apart from more intelligent critiques.

People who are voting for Trump are not going to stop supporting him because Elizabeth Warren doesn't like him. It's pointless of her to even mention him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:45 AM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Why do people think that when we say "we don't like this thing" that we're somehow claiming it's not effective? Or that, even if we thought that, telling us that it works is going to change our mind?
posted by phearlez at 10:46 AM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm just not sure I object to 'stooping to his level' per se, in situations like this. Like, why take it as a given that using an opponent's own language against them is auto-bad?
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:47 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


In most social, political and economic transactions it is reasonable to do due diligence before making important decisions. There are many of use who think that what she says to large corporations like Goldman Sachs in her speeches may have an influence on her policies.

This was not always an unreasonable position. But it is different now, for "reasons".
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:47 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Donald Trump reveals foreign policy team in meeting with The Washington Post: “Walid Phares, who you probably know. Ph.D., adviser to the House of Representatives. He’s a counter-terrorism expert," Trump said.

Ah, yes, this guy:
Phares' message, though more polished, isn't all that different from the paranoid worldview of anti-Muslim figures in the United States. In Future Jihad, Phares writes that "jihadists within the West pose as civil rights advocates" working to ensure that "[a]lmost all mosques, educational centers, and socioeconomic institutions fall into their hands." Phares contends these stealth jihadists are merely waiting for a "holy moment" to strike.

"[Phares] is telling people to suspect all Muslims Americans as something other than how they portray to themselves," says Thomas Cincotta, one of the authors of a report titled "Manufacturing the Muslim Menace," published by the liberal group Political Research Associates. But it's not just anyone Phares is preaching his ideas to. "He's addressing the intelligence community, he's addressing policymakers, military personnel," Cincotta notes.

Phares eventually came into Mitt Romney's orbit. Shortly after President Barack Obama won the election in 2008, Toni Nissi says Phares told Nissi over dinner at Washington's Madison Hotel that Romney had promised Phares a high-ranking White House job helping craft US policy in the Middle East should the ex-governor win in 2012.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:48 AM on March 21, 2016


That Warren post is a thing of beauty.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:48 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


People who are voting for Trump are not going to stop supporting him because Elizabeth Warren doesn't like him. It's pointless of her to even mention him.

I don't agree there. For one thing, Sanders fans love her, and adding her voice to the chorus will help re-engage Sanders supporters who are currently pissed and considering sitting the election out. But, more importantly, if she can bait Trump into saying some really nasty shit about women, that may in fact sway some moderately-low-info female voters.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:49 AM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


For one thing, Sanders fans love her, and adding her voice to the chorus will help re-engage Sanders supporters who are currently pissed and considering sitting the election out.

I guess. I'm a Sanders fan, may have to vote third party in November, and I wish Warren hadn't said anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:51 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Let's dispel the fiction that Elizabeth Warren doesn't know exactly what she's doing, etc
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:51 AM on March 21, 2016 [8 favorites]


Is it stooping to his level if it's an attempt to bait and trap him? He seems to attach meaning and authority to the word "loser" in a way that sets it apart from more intelligent critiques.

People who are voting for Trump are not going to stop supporting him because Elizabeth Warren doesn't like him. It's pointless of her to even mention him.


As noted in the comment you quoted, it seems like she's talking more to Trump than to his supporters.

Plus, there are still a lot of people on the fence (as amazing as that seems to us here) -- only 7.5 million people have voted for him. There are millions and millions of Americans who haven't made up their minds, and every voice that comes up against him may sway some of those people.
posted by Etrigan at 10:51 AM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


As much as I disagree with Rubio, Bush, etc...they lost to Trump in part because they were playing along the usual guidelines. Then when they dropped out everyone was calling them "losers" just like Trump was.

Trump is setting the tone on how people talk and what they say during this campaign. Elizabeth Warren is 1,000,000 times more competent than Trump - I think she should choose better words.
posted by zutalors! at 10:51 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I like Warren a lot, but I don't like that she called him a "loser" - it feels like stooping to his level.

It also uses his framing and it degrades our political milieu.
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:51 AM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is it stooping to his level if it's an attempt to bait and trap him? He seems to attach meaning and authority to the word "loser" in a way that sets it apart from more intelligent critiques.

People who are voting for Trump are not going to stop supporting him because Elizabeth Warren doesn't like him. It's pointless of her to even mention him.


There's more than one way that could work, though.

1. People turn away from Trump because they see Warren's critique. Doubtful that any current supporters would be influenced this way, probably minimal influence on people who would otherwise consider voting for him (doesn't overlap with Warren's support), has more effect on people who dislike Trump but would be lukewarm on whomever the Dem nominee ends up being.

2. Trump goes apeshit and/or lashes out in an unflattering way because of the post -- this would have a much bigger impact on people who don't currently support him but would consider doing so, as well as people lukewarm on the Dem nominee. It strengthens the #neverTrump argument.
posted by sallybrown at 10:53 AM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think the Warren post is a good opening shot. The Democratic Party will have to hit Trump high and low. Hillary herself can't do too much of it, because she's the main candidate and she's trying to be a unifier. I don't think Bill should do it, because, well, he's Bill Clinton. So, other than Biden and maybe Sanders, I don't know who else could do it.
posted by FJT at 10:56 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


So, other than Biden and maybe Sanders, I don't know who else could do it.

I know a guy.
posted by cashman at 10:57 AM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


There's this guy I know, Barry something? ;)
posted by sallybrown at 10:58 AM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think his wife's name is Michelle...
posted by sallybrown at 10:59 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ha, I wonder if Trump's meeting with Republican leaders today had anything to do with the announcement of the foreign policy team.

I think if you're at the point where you're talking about email servers and Benghazi and speech transcripts and whatever, there is no amount of transparency from the Clinton campaign that is going to convince you. Like, the ardent anti-Clinton people here: seriously, what would she need to do to convince you? What would make you think she was trustworthy?
posted by Anonymous at 10:59 AM on March 21, 2016


There's this guy I know, Barry something?

That's the guy I'm thinking of. Can't think of his last name at the moment.
posted by cashman at 11:00 AM on March 21, 2016


A low shot at Trump by Obama? No thanks.
posted by zutalors! at 11:00 AM on March 21, 2016


They email me a lot, I'll shoot them a quick note!
posted by sallybrown at 11:00 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


People who are voting for Trump are not going to stop supporting him because Elizabeth Warren doesn't like him. It's pointless of her to even mention him.

It's obvious that this is an attempt to rile up a wildly egotistical misogynist to do or say something stupid, using the kind of language and messenger that throws him off-guard. And it's probably timed pretty well, too, considering that Trump is going to speak in front of AIPAC this afternoon, and it's not a group that he has a lot of heft with. They're not his natural audience, he's shown a tendency to veer towards anti-Semitic stereotypes, and his campaign has a veneer of hatred that most Jewish Americans see as echoing Hitler. If he's thrown off his game and says something messed up in front of 50k+ people, it'll end up on the news for the whole week.

Trump is setting the tone on how people talk and what they say during this campaign. Elizabeth Warren is 1,000,000 times more competent than Trump - I think she should choose better words.

It also uses his framing and it degrades our political milieu.


As others have pointed out, it's actually not using his framing (as Etrigan said she's using it to refer to a "person who loses"), and using someone seen as highly competent to repeatedly hammer Trump's incompetence is probably a pretty good idea.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:01 AM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


Obama and Bill Clinton should just film an hourlong special where they sit down and riff on Trump and the election together. Maybe bring in some guests, cut to some correspondent skits, whatever.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:03 AM on March 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


There's this guy I know, Barry something? ;)

No no, Obama's role is to continue to serve up the underhanded digs he's so good at, while also standing around and reminding us just how darn LIKABLE he is.

It's no coincidence that his approval ratings climbed back over 50% recently - it's not because of some specific thing he did, it's because people looked at him and then looked at Trump and then thought "geez, maybe my issues with Obama aren't so important after all"
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:03 AM on March 21, 2016 [8 favorites]


My guess is there's nothing there. I mean besides things that can be taken out of context which is essentially anything she said past "Hello, my name is Hillary Clinton". But there always has to be something bubbling, so I feel like she may be just letting her opponents go on a wild goose chase, trying to expose the content of the speeches and waste time on that. Because there has to be something, right? Everybody loves a conspiracy. So okay, you honed in on this nonsense, I'll let you spin your wheels trying to dig into it since I know nothing's there. In which case she would indeed be a smooth operator, operating correctly.

I agree that there's probably not a whole lot there. Some mildly damaging stuff, no doubt. And I wouldn't be surprised if the "wild goose chase" theory you outline is the calculus. Maybe it is even the best thing for the campaign to do.

However, I don't think it is, for the reason that this sort of "bubbling thing" contributes to the sense that soft/undecided centrist and left-wing people have that Sec. Clinton is in the elites' pocket. That's not a thing to have hanging over one's candidacy in this anti-establishment year.

The Benghazi thing, even the email thing, 90s era dredged-up drama -- those "bubbling things" are a bit different: I don't think any potential Clinton voters are going to change their mind over that stuff. It's all pretty transparent mudflinging to people who aren't already fully on board with whatever horrible nominee the GOP vomits up this summer.

I think Sec. Clinton needs to have her own Sister Souljah moment where she throws Wall Street under the bus. Release the transcripts, call yourself out a bit and explain to people what you're going to do to rein in the financiers. Make it a big pivot from neo-liberalism to left-populism, take some wind out of the sails of both the Sanders campaign and the Trump campaign.

It's an opportunity for them to actually address a big issue and reposition themselves, but they insist on looking super secretive for no real political gain.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:03 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


There's a difference between a hard blow and a low blow. I think Warren's post was hard.
posted by benito.strauss at 11:04 AM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


No no, Obama's role is to continue to serve up the underhanded digs he's so good at

That's how I interpret "low" - not a straightforward and serious discussion of Trump's positions, but using mockery to undercut him as a serious candidate.

Obama has already taken potshots at Trump. The WHCD speech was excellent despite not being a critique of Trump's policy positions. It just has to be the right tone and the right timing.
posted by sallybrown at 11:06 AM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


One odd thing about Trump is there won't be as many shady leaks of bad character evidence, because so much of his dirty laundry is already public.
posted by sallybrown at 11:09 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


You guys sometimes I think about what if Obama had managed to hold onto majorities in the House and Senate and then I have to go drink a lot

ANYWAY, I compared three different roundups of which Senate seats are most likely to flip, and it looks like Illinois, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin are the most likely ones, with Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania very possible and North Carolina, Arizona, and Missouri possible. (Of these, only CO and NV are currently held by Dems.) I plan to keep following these races and once the primaries are over, I'll be throwing all my donation money at the Dems in the top 5 or 6 races and encouraging others to do the same.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:12 AM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


One odd thing about Trump is there won't be as many shady leaks of bad character evidence, because so much of his dirty laundry is already public.

If I were a betting woman I'd put money on a sex tape surfacing before November.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:13 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obama will and should wait until after there is a candidate. It would be ill advised to go after Trump now as a sitting president with presumably more important things to do. He'll have things to say when the time is right.
posted by readery at 11:13 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


>If I were a betting woman I'd put money on a sex tape surfacing before November.

If Trump was telling the truth about the size of his package then I wouldn't put it past him to leak the tape himself.
posted by Dragonness at 11:16 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Release the transcripts, call yourself out a bit and explain to people what you're going to do to rein in the financiers.

Yeah, why won't Obama just release his long-form birth certificate, if he's got nothing to hide?

Jesus, you're just straight up following the Republican playbook trying to take down your own side now.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:18 AM on March 21, 2016 [6 favorites]




If Trump was telling the truth about the size of his package then I wouldn't put it past him to leak the tape himself.

Agreed, and the fact that we haven't seen one yet leads me to the opposite conclusion
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:18 AM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


The "Taking lots of money from people whom you are supposed to regulate" isn't a problem in the GOP playbook, since it's their M.O.
posted by mikelieman at 11:23 AM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]



Jesus, you're just straight up following the Republican playbook trying to take down your own side now.


Right, and I haven't even seen that pay off for the Republicans.

HRC has still gotten more votes than any other candidate, including the populists with revolutions on both sides.
posted by zutalors! at 11:24 AM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


Jesus, you're just straight up following the Republican playbook trying to take down your own side now.

During the Bush years, daring to question his decisions after 9/11 was reduced to, "either you're with us, or you're against us." The left should be able to do marginally better.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:25 AM on March 21, 2016 [10 favorites]


I'm fully on board with Elizabeth Warren's shot across the bow. Trump needs to be hammered as hard and as often as possible, so that there can be no other fig leaf to justify support of him than just plain ol' white nationalism. Hammering his business failures, his lack of policy positions, his short temper, his inability to think on his feet, all of that demonstrates that he has no ability to govern. Plus the fact that it's a woman bringing the criticisms will bring back to mind his shitty misogynistic attitudes (as amply demonstrated in his treatment of Megyn Kelly), and could goad him into even more public missteps.
posted by Existential Dread at 11:27 AM on March 21, 2016 [10 favorites]


The Warren piece is a brilliant. She knows that the rest of the Republicans brought knives to a gun fight. She used Trumps word--"loser"--correctly and as a lead in to bringing up his many failings. She probably would prefer Sanders, but she knows which ever Democrat wins the nomination, that person must win. She will be a potent weapon for the Democrats.
posted by haiku warrior at 11:30 AM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Obama actually did release his birth certificate, and it didn't stop any Birthers. Again: Clinton has seen no indication that the people who are agitating for her to do all this stuff will actually be convinced by anything.

I asked this question before: anti-Clinton people here, what could she do that would convince you she's trustworthy?
posted by Anonymous at 11:51 AM on March 21, 2016


I think perhaps there are a lot of people on the sidelines that actually may make a decision about whether to vote for her not if they think she is hiding something in the speeches?

The proportion of the American electorate who

(a) know that there exists a set of speech transcripts that she has not released and
(b) are not already reliable partisan voters

is probably very small. The proportion of those people who are actively using that as a decision criterion will necessarily be an even smaller subset.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:57 AM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


Bernie just sent out an e-mail with the subject line, "Tomorrow night is YUGE"
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:05 PM on March 21, 2016




Well, whatever Trump's shortcomings, he certainly has made "YUGE!" the mother of all words of this campaign, especially if Sanders has appropriated it.
posted by haiku warrior at 12:09 PM on March 21, 2016




Meanwhile, in 2015 the bulk of Bernie's individual contributions weren't itemized--i.e. nobody's keeping track of individual contribution limits or verifying US citizenship. And he's already been sent two letters by the FEC warning him about this (linked within the article), as well as shoddy paperwork.

I would like to see what Bernie fans would do if the Clinton campaign was receiving such letters. I also think it's pretty telling that neither the Clinton campaign nor mainstream media have been making hay with this--kind of goes against the accusation that they're all about the anti-Bernie bias and unfair attacks.

Here's the thing though: you can go after an candidate for something that looks kind of bad but is likely not particularly damning, attempting to play the death by a thousand cuts, or you can focus on actual issues and attacking the proto-fascist that's likely going to win the nomination of the other party.
posted by Anonymous at 12:13 PM on March 21, 2016


especially if Sanders has appropriated it.

Sanders and Trump are both from New York City, where that pronunciation is not uncommon, i.e. he didn't appropriate it.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:16 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I mean, I say yuge also (New Yorker) but Sanders is definitely making a Trump joke with the header.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:18 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I stand corrected. And I meant no disrespect for Sanders. Merely acknowledging Trump's dominance of the political conversation.
posted by haiku warrior at 12:20 PM on March 21, 2016


Um, I actually do think that Sec. Clinton will win the nomination, and I want her to do as well as possible in the general. I'm not an unhinged berniebro. I just think that Sec. Clinton has run a pretty crappy campaign so far and I hope that doesn't continue for her sake, for the sake of the country and for my own sake as a person that would not do well under a Trump or Cruz administration.

Pointing out weaknesses in the campaign and offering ways to shore them up is not equivalent to birtherism. Birthers were never operating in good faith; most supporters of Sen. Sanders do actually want Sec. Clinton to win if we can't have our preferred candidate.

Her biggest challenge as I see it is to avoid being painted as the status-quo, establishment, pro-business candidate. The transcripts thing is a weapon that works because it reinforces what people (left, right and center) already believe about Sec. Clinton -- sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, sometimes because of sexism.

Regardless, she needs to counter that perception and articulate a center-left path out of the crumbling neo-liberal consensus or Donald Trump will do it for her and not in a good direction.

I asked this question before: anti-Clinton people here, what could she do that would convince you she's trustworthy?

Well, I'm not anti-Clinton so much as pro-progressive policy. She's by far the best of a bad lot (leaving Sen. Sanders out of the mix), which, fine, whatever, that's the way politics goes.

As supporters of Sec. Clinton have loudly, repeatedly and rightly said, trust isn't built overnight. Sen. Sanders obviously has learned that lesson among black voters and older voters this year. So, while I don't think there's any one thing that Sec. Clinton can do to build trust among the various groups that currently aren't backing her as much as they could be (young people, progressives, moderate independents, Latino voters to name a few), one thing she can do is be genuine and candid about her previous ties to the financial industry, acknowledge the real anger that people feel toward Wall Street and show people that she's on their side against them.

It's good politics and good policy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:23 PM on March 21, 2016 [15 favorites]


I asked this question before: anti-Clinton people here, what could she do that would convince you she's trustworthy?

Probably nothing, to be honest. It is partly her personality and demeanor, but partly her record. I don't think she's trustworthy.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:24 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I asked this question before: anti-Clinton people here, what could she do that would convince you she's trustworthy?
Just off the top of my head.
1) Release the transcripts.
2) Disavow regime change as a foreign policy goal.
3) Stop taking money from the private prison industry.
4) Come out unequivocally against fracking.
5) Support a 15 dollar minimum wage.
6) Make universal health care a part of her platform.
7) Adress the climate crisis more aggressively.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:26 PM on March 21, 2016 [12 favorites]


Also -- I mean, maybe this is not true for most voters but I don't super need to trust or like a candidate in order to support them, although it helps a lot. I mean, I like and trust President Obama and think he's done a damn good job but I didn't vote for him because I felt he was too conservative; and likewise if I can believe that Sec. Clinton will actually push the ball down the field in terms of progressive social policies & programs without also doubling down on hawkish foreign policy and neoliberal economics, it'll make it much easier for me (and I suspect other wary progressives) to get behind her even if we don't totally trust or like her personally.

And, you know, I don't dislike Sec. Clinton. I certainly have a lot of respect for her intelligence, competence and sheer force of will to push through a lot of BS that's been thrown at her. I just also think she's pretty wishy-washy on some issues that are very important to me and I don't trust her to handle them well.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:38 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


But yertledaturtle, is this a comprehensive list? Or would there always be one more thing? Because if the answer is the latter is "yes," then you can never be convinced that she is trustworthy.

And some of the items on your list are policy positions, for example supporting $12 instead of $15 minimum wage. You might disagree with her position, but I don't see how that position contributes to perceiving her as untrustworthy. The question was not what would she have to do to have you support her, but how would could she address the perception of trustworthiness.
posted by haiku warrior at 12:42 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


8) Ensure proper goalpost security to prevent further movement.
posted by Etrigan at 12:44 PM on March 21, 2016 [11 favorites]


For me, her continued gaffes (Nancy Reagan being the most recent that I can remember, but there were a few that weekend) continue to reinforce the notion for me that Secretary Clinton is not at all what she's selling herself to be. She just had to take the good part of a week off of the campaign trail to raise money, so things have ben quieter, but she reguarly says things that I'm uncomfortable with.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:45 PM on March 21, 2016


Corporate collusion like this is likely why we still haven't seen the Goldman Sachs and other speech transcripts we were promised by Clinton's campaign

FFS one of the three speeches has been on YouTube since 2014. I've pointed this out several times, and the refusal of Sanders supporters to acknowledge this (or, obviously, to even go look at it) is -- I don't know what. Denial? Disingenuous?

I wouldn't be surprised if her campaign is planning to release them at some moment say right after her opponent or a big PAC has committed $20 million of TV ad time to an attack demanding them. There is nothing there, and frankly it's to her advantage if opponents spend their time focusing on such a non-issue. But it doesn't speak well of her opponents.
posted by msalt at 12:46 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


And some of the items on your list are policy positions, for example supporting $12 instead of $15 minimum wage. You might disagree with her position, but I don't see how that position contributes to perceiving her as untrustworthy. The question was not what would she have to do to have you support her, but how would could she address the perception of trustworthiness.

Yes. Clinton's policy positions are a factor I use to determine her trustworthiness.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:50 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton's policy positions are a factor I use to determine her trustworthiness.

Well that's just crazy talk
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:55 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I asked this question before: anti-Clinton people here, what could she do that would convince you she's trustworthy?

Okay. The GOP alternatives would happily put me and my husband into an oven, so short of a miracle with Sanders, I'll probably end up having to vote for her; she may not like me and my kind, but at least I don't get the sense she would have us killed, so she doesn't need to convince me of much more than that. That said, others who don't have the same survival issues still seem to think she has a problem with seeming trustworthy, and if we are all being even marginally on the level with each other, that is of no insignificant part of her own doing. Hiding everything that she does which smells dodgy was and continues to be her choice, and after a while, it gives her campaign a bad smell. If she was to even make an attempt at being on the level with voters, that would probably go a long way to addressing the problem. If she isn't beholden to big business, for example, releasing the speech transcripts is a start. If she's worried about a Romney-level gaffe being uncovered, then maybe she shouldn't have taken the money before trying to tell everyone what a great progressive she is. Part of an election involves vetting candidates for the job, for crying out loud.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:56 PM on March 21, 2016


8) Ensure proper goalpost security to prevent further movement.

Respectfully, this is a somewhat disingenuous argument. I laid out honestly -the issues that were on the top of my mind as to why I would not support Clinton and that lead me to not trust her. If she changes her position on at least 3/4ths of the list- I would strongly consider giving her my vote.

The other things on my list are to drop support for the death penalty and to acknowledge that the so-called "free trade" agreements of the past are disasters economically.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:56 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


I asked this question before: anti-Clinton people here, what could she do that would convince you she's trustworthy?

I actually really like Clinton as a person, and could totally see being friends with her. But, it would be one of those friendships where you don't discuss politics because you're not quite closely enough aligned politically to keep it from getting too heated and jeopardizing the friendship. It's not so much trustworthiness as it is a different set of core principles -- I think she's more or less telling the truth about whatever she's said (taken in the context of politics and self-serving public speech in general). But, on any given issue I don't trust her to make the same decision I would make, if presented with the same evidence. One area that I was able to hone in on in the past week or so, that I think really illustrates this difference in world view is her conception of protest and its role in public policy. I've mentioned it in passing here upthread, but her characterization of the 80s aids protest and the Chicago Trump protests/Charleston Confederate flag protest have brought this more into the forefront for me. And, looking back, as a former constituent when she was in the Senate, it bothers me that she didn't give greater weight to the Iraq war protests that were happening in her state (and the many letters we sent to her office). I wish she'd have more of the "womens rights are human rights" kind of moments -- moments when she's speaking truth to power. I wish she'd walk on more picket lines and join people in protest -- before those protests become national news. But, I get that she's probably just not that person; that's not how she interacts with the political system. And that's ok, but it just doesn't mesh with my preferred idea of a political leader (and I get how sexism has constrained who "Hillary Clinton" can be as well).

So, it's not that I think she's a liar. I just think she is operating from a different set of values and that makes me nervous about how she'll govern. It's like, there are people who I think are good parents but I wouldn't select them to be a guardian for my kids if something were to happen to me because we have different core values. I think she'll be a good president, but I would prefer someone who shares more of my values.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:57 PM on March 21, 2016 [12 favorites]


The GOP alternatives would happily put me and my husband into an oven

Can we not with this please.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:58 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


The proportion of the American electorate who

(a) know that there exists a set of speech transcripts that she has not released and
(b) are not already reliable partisan voters

is probably very small. The proportion of those people who are actively using that as a decision criterion will necessarily be an even smaller subset.


I have no idea how many voters are in the set that will use this as a factor in making a decision for whom they will vote for. I can only account for my own vote and it definitely is part of my criteria. Also, your assertion seems to be speculative? Is your assertion based on any data/evidence?
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:10 PM on March 21, 2016


So Trump called Elizabeth Warren an "Indian" already and then went on to tell a bunch of lies about getting all the votes, our education system ranked last, etc.

The media just tosses him those questions, too. "Elizabeth Warren called you a loser, what do you say to that?"

She shouldn't have said anything, I don't know what that accomplished.
posted by zutalors! at 1:10 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


That was a good explanation, melissaurus. The situation in which you and many others find themselves is what happens in politics most of the time, unfortunately. Certainly that has been my experience for most of my adult life, and for me it has often been the tension between getting 100% of nothing by voting for someone whom I might totally agree and will definitely lose, and 50% of something with someone with whom I only partly agree yet has a very good chance of winning. The classic conflict in politics.
posted by haiku warrior at 1:16 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm surprised so many progressives seem to agree 100% with Sanders, he's not even very far left.
posted by zutalors! at 1:17 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I feel like we should be in "don't feed the trolls" territory with Trump now. Any mention of him will just cause the news cycle to be full of him responding and then a response to the response and then his retort to the response to the response, etc. I'd prefer if the Dem leaders just went all in on being political leaders -- don't respond to Trump's rhetoric via Facebook posts or on the Sunday talking heads shows; just do your job; something like a month where every single Democrat in the House or Senate and at the state level introduced a piece of legislation to solve a current problem. A legislation blitz of sorts -- something to say he's all talk, we're action. Something to show that the job is more than just standing at a podium and saying great and tremendous every other word.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:18 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm surprised so many progressives seem to agree 100% with Sanders, he's not even very far left.

I don't agree with him 100%, but it's a lot closer to 100% than it is with Clinton. That is, I'm already compromising by supporting Sanders, so to support Clinton (which, unless things change dramatically, won't be necessary for me to do in my state) is even further of a compromise of my values. And I think he's operating from a similar point of view with respect to humanism and grassroots agitation such that for issues that might arise in the future (the unknown unknowns), it's more likely that we would agree on the correct course of action compared to Clinton.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:23 PM on March 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm surprised so many progressives seem to agree 100% with Sanders, he's not even very far left.

Is this the case that so many progressives seem to agree 100% with him?
I agree he is not very far left. In my mind he is like an FDR type democrat.

Personally, I disagree with a lot of Sanders avowed positions and votes in the past. I would say that politically, I estimate I am about 65% aligned with him. As for other progressives - I can't speak for them.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:25 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think they're closer on most things than people want to believe, which I know drives people crazy but that's just what I think, not trying to convince anyone. When taking those "Who Do you Agree with?" quizzes I get 90% Clinton and 95% Sanders, and I can tell how that drills down.
posted by zutalors! at 1:26 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


It depends on what your priorities are. If the differences that they have are your key voting issues, the difference of 5% is more like 100%.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:27 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


there's a lot I don't like about Sanders' campaign, and that's a key voting issue to me.
posted by zutalors! at 1:30 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also like I said, I can see how it drills down - I know what the issues are where they split. It's not that those are not important issues, I just see how progress on them can be achieved differently.
posted by zutalors! at 1:31 PM on March 21, 2016


I'm surprised so many progressives seem to agree 100% with Sanders, he's not even very far left.

Um? Off the top of my head, I think he's too fuzzy on foreign policy, I don't agree with his stance on gun rights and I think he did not do enough outreach to black voters as he was laying the ground for his candidacy. I think his speaking style is kind of annoyingly monotone (in content, I mean, not literal tone) and I wish he would do more to tie his (admittedly highly important) pet issues of campaign finance reform and Wall Street reform into a broader progressive vision. I think his emphasis on "a political revolution" is commendable but that he hasn't done enough to flesh out what that looks like and how we take steps toward it. I think he's silly to call himself a democratic socialist when he's really more accurately a social democrat or a New Deal democrat.

On balance, though, I'm closer to him on the issues, I trust him more to be an advocate for my values in a situation where the President isn't going to be able to get much done through Congress, I think he's somewhat more electable and I think he is likely to have longer coattails. So I've supported him over Sec. Clinton in the primary and in the general I hope she beats the Republican, for many of the same reasons.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:33 PM on March 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


Can we not with this please.

How about: GOP candidates choose to pander to violent evangelical, dominionist, and white supremacist movements that threaten the lives of minorities. Is that acceptable discourse or can we not point that out, either?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:35 PM on March 21, 2016 [12 favorites]


How about: GOP candidates choose to pander to violent evangelical, dominionist, and white supremacist movements that threaten the lives of minorities. Is that acceptable discourse or can we not point that out, either?

I think that's fine. Talking about ovens without realizing that your audience might be Jewish people is not great.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:37 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


there's a lot I don't like about Sanders' campaign, and that's a key voting issue to me.

zutalors!, I'd be curious what these dislikes are, if you're willing to share.
posted by kyp at 1:37 PM on March 21, 2016


Also, your assertion seems to be speculative? Is your assertion based on any data/evidence?

We've known for a very long time that high-information, high-interest people are much more likely to be reliably partisan voters. I'm guessing that not very many people who aren't high-interest-high-info know (or could recall unprompted) that this speech business exists but do not have any real information on that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:38 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]





there's a lot I don't like about Sanders' campaign, and that's a key voting issue to me.

zutalors!, I'd be curious what these dislikes are, if you're willing to share.


A lot of it is mirrored in what tivalasvegas said:


Um? Off the top of my head, I think he's too fuzzy on foreign policy, I don't agree with his stance on gun rights and I think he did not do enough outreach to black voters as he was laying the ground for his candidacy. I think his speaking style is kind of annoyingly monotone (in content, I mean, not literal tone) and I wish he would do more to tie his (admittedly highly important) pet issues of campaign finance reform and Wall Street reform into a broader progressive vision. I think his emphasis on "a political revolution" is commendable but that he hasn't done enough to flesh out what that looks like and how we take steps toward it. I think he's silly to call himself a democratic socialist when he's really more accurately a social democrat or a New Deal democrat.

Additionally he's really clunky on race - he called an Indian American a Muslim when he was Hindu in a town hall, and seemed to not really empathize when another Indian American asked him what he would do to stop Trump.

I don't like that he talks about poverty whenever he talks about black people. He doesn't seem to be separating them in his mind. I also don't like all the "we'll get the white states" talk.

I don't like his support for the drone program or his lack of support for Snowden. If he went a different way on those things he definitely wouldn't be electable, but the whole "revolution" bit would ring more true to me.

More than anything a lot of his choices - refusing to pivot from the "Revolution," not seeming to mention or support downticket races at all, the Democratic Socialist thing, which not only gives the right "Socialist" fuel but is kind of clunky to explain - make him seem like someone who can't or won't compromise or listen to any diversity of views. I don't feel like there's a community in his campaign, it's a leader and his followers.

I understand people feel differently, but I was close to supporting Sanders in February, so I'm not some longterm Clinton supporter. I've grown to be much more of one, though. I think she's running the more positive campaign, to be honest, and it's repeatedly said that the most positive campaigns are the ones that win.
posted by zutalors! at 1:46 PM on March 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm guessing that not very many people who aren't high-interest-high-info know (or could recall unprompted) that this speech business exists but do not have any real information on that.

Which goes to my point that if there is some stupid 47% type gaffe in them, she should just come out about it now when most voters aren't paying attention.

The stonewalling look isn't a good one for a campaign that's already knocked (again, fairly or no) for being shifty/untrustworthy. Sec. Clinton does much better on "ok, asked and answered, let's move on please?", amused/annoyed/bemused territory.

Look at the Benghazi hearings, she came across as competent, collected and reasonable in the face of Republican bloody-minded obsession. That's what wins her the sympathy and the votes of moderates in November, I think.

When this gets thrown at her in a debate or an attack ad, I want her to be able to say "Look, we released all this stuff months ago, and I explained to the American people how I believe we need to do XYZ to clean up Wall Street. Do you want to talk about that or do you want to go on and on about stuff I've already addressed", as opposed to October clickbait headlines about "Hillary to Goldman Sachs in Leaked Transcripts: You Guys Rock!" that she then has to spin her way around.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:51 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Benghazi hearings went on for literal years. Why should Hillary think releasing the transcripts will kill the issue now rather than cause it to be litigated and re-litigated from now until November?
posted by Elementary Penguin at 1:55 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


zutalors!, I agree with a lot of that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:55 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Because she can then frame it as old news, note that she's evolved on the issues and pivot toward what her Administration's policies will be re: Wall Street.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:59 PM on March 21, 2016


Thanks zutalors!, that definitely gives me more perspective.

Full disclosure, as a Sanders supporter, I don't agree with you but I respect that we have differences in opinion. I'm tempted to rebut/debate some of the points you raised, but I think at this point both sides have done a good job of presenting data and opinion already (and are continuing to do so), and at the end of the day it's our own prerogative to make informed choices.
posted by kyp at 2:04 PM on March 21, 2016 [10 favorites]


Because she can then frame it as old news, note that she's evolved on the issues and pivot toward what her Administration's policies will be re: Wall Street.

Conversely, she might be able to dominate a couple of key fall news cycles, embarrass her opponent and cause those lined up against her to waste a couple of tens of millions of dollars if she withholds the transcripts until a carefully chosen time, and then releases them.

The Clintons know from political attacks. And if you know your enemies will be throwing something at you no matter what, then controlling what that attack is -- even by refusing to release the transcripts in a way that looks shifty -- might be smart politics.
posted by msalt at 2:06 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well I certainly hope they know what they're doing.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:15 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


For what it's worth, I hope I didn't offend any Sanders supporters by implying that a distrust of her was "bullshit." I do, however, think that there's a distinction to be made between distrust of her person (thinking she's "calculating"), and not having confidence that she'll support all the issues that are important to you. The latter is much more valid and important to me.

I think there's fewer people who think she's a smirking snake than there are people who just don't like that she gets money from the prison industry, you know? So it seems to me that the question of what it'll take to get people to trust her seems to be overlooking what the real complaints are. It's not really getting at why people prefer Sanders.

The fact that they have so much in common shouldn't undermine how someone feels about either candidate. The distinctions are clearly important enough to everyone that they're willing to go to bat for one or the other. I think people are misreading a lot of Sanders hype as thinking Clinton is the Devil - and for sure some people do feel that way, but it's not fair to approach every Sanders supporter that way.
posted by teponaztli at 2:21 PM on March 21, 2016


Is anyone besides me worried that there might be a "reverse Bradley effect" going on this year? People who claim they won't vote for Trump in polls, but will when they are in the privacy of the voting booth?
posted by wittgenstein at 2:38 PM on March 21, 2016


I'm more worried about the Boris Johnson effect.
posted by rifflesby at 2:44 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


By the way, I think Bernie Sanders' impact on downticket races shouldn't be limited only to his explicit support. I mentioned this on another thread, but I've already given more to downticket progressive candidates from multiple states this year than my cumulative contributions from before.

And I suspect I'm not alone in this. There are definitely a few smart and hungry grassroots communities that are forming around him and pushing people to get more engaged financially and politically.
posted by kyp at 2:46 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm surprised so many progressives seem to agree 100% with Sanders, he's not even very far left.

Why would you think that progressives agree 100% with Sanders? If the political spectrum were a line (I know it isn't, but bear with me), then we could expect people to vote based on the closest available option. To illustrate, suppose the spectrum looked like this:

[------------Sanders----------------Clinton-----------------Trump----Cruz--]

Then we would expect people over where the "x" is below to vote for Sanders (if they are voting for any of these candidates), even though they might reasonably say that he is more conservative than they are:

[--x---------Sanders----------------Clinton-----------------Trump----Cruz--]

This is basically an intuitive reconstruction of the median voter theorem.

Just speaking for myself, I am farther left economically and farther left-libertarian than Sanders. But I support him because he is the left-most of the major candidates. By supporting him, I move politics closer to where I live. But not all the way there by any means.

One reason for me to care more than usual is that when you look at the relative distances between the candidates laid out on a reasonable two-dimensional system, there is more distance between Sanders and Clinton than there is between Clinton and the Republicans. And way more distance on the economic axis, which is the axis I most care about. So there is actually a lot at stake for progressives in the Democratic primary this year.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:53 PM on March 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


Is there an explanation for how this "distance" is calculated, or what it really means?

The website does not explain its scoring system in detail

mkay

Hillary is nevertheless disingenuously promoting herself as the centrist

Seems very objective, though!
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:01 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


8) Ensure proper goalpost security to prevent further movement.

Respectfully, this is a somewhat disingenuous argument. I laid out honestly -the issues that were on the top of my mind as to why I would not support Clinton and that lead me to not trust her.


The question, which you quoted, was "what could she do that would convince you she's trustworthy?" You moved the goalposts to include "and would make you vote for her?"
posted by Etrigan at 3:03 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


I really like the political compass site - I had come across a while ago, but finally took the quiz a few weeks back. Recognizing that I'm nearly as far to the lower left quadrant as one can be (I think it was like -8,-9 or something like that for the coordinates), and Clinton is just not remotely close to that helped me chill out a bit about Clinton's politics. That it's just difference of opinion and viewpoint, not a who's right or wrong thing - we're basically answering different questions, we're each right, we're just coming at it from a different perspective and with different goals. I also like that the site puts the policies into a global and historical perspective. Just because Sanders and Clinton are the Democratic party choices this year doesn't mean that's all that is out there in terms of possible viewpoints.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:06 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


The question, which you quoted, was "what could she do that would convince you she's trustworthy?" You moved the goalposts to include "and would make you vote for her?"

A) The reasons I would or would not vote for her are inextricably tied to if I consider her trustworthy or not.
8) Ensure proper goalpost security to prevent further movement.

B) Here, you made up an imaginary reason for me. This is not my thinking at all.
I would call that form of argumentation unconvincing and it falsely attributes a reason to me. Additionally - You did not counter any one of my reasons with a valid counter argument.
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:14 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also - I would appreciate it if people did not do that. It is not very nice. I will stop commenting if it continues.
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:16 PM on March 21, 2016


To further explain - I have an extremely difficult time writing about my opinion on this stuff anyway without fear of being beat up emotionally and having made up stuff inferred about my views in the process. I cannot participate in discussions at all that have this type of argument. I can't/ won't stop anyone who wants to do this but it makes it doubly challenging for me to participate.
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:26 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is there an explanation for how this "distance" is calculated, or what it really means?

No. Which is a good criticism. So let me rephrase. The chart they produce looks reasonable to me based on what I have read and heard from these candidates and based on how the chart compares to other races and to what I believe about the candidates in those races. I don't know the details of how they produce the chart, so I don't know exactly what the metric looks like. However, we can get at least a rough sense of it by taking their test and seeing how different answers affect placement on the chart. Having done that, I find the placement of the candidates reasonable. I could be wrong, and you might disagree. At which point, we should probably get into specifics (where I think there is a lot to be said on both sides, actually).

As to objectivity, I disagree with their assessment that Clinton is being disingenuous. I think she is being accurate but restricting the space of live U.S. politics to more or less the upper-righthand quadrant of the political compass chart. If the chart is right and if Trump and Sanders define the fringe positions on the right and left, respectively, then Clinton is correctly described as a centrist between Trump and Sanders. It's just that that does not make her a centrist in a global context. But the fact that they say Clinton is disingenuous is not exactly a knock-down argument that their chart is objective. If their analysis comes first and is followed by their commentary, then it just reflects a bias toward global context. What's worrying is that they may have altered their analysis to fit a pre-formed commentary. I don't know that they didn't do that, but as I said, their chart seems reasonable to me. Of course, I also don't have a well-defined metric. Maybe I should try to construct one.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 3:28 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


CNN's falling all over themselves like "Oh wow, Trump did a speech and showed he could use a teleprompter!" We're doomed yall.
posted by cashman at 3:58 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't think this has been linked before, and it's new, so: holy shit, Trump has not got a single clue. Transcript of Trump's meeting with the Washington Post editorial board.

I don't know how (or if) the editorial board he met with could avoid breaking out into laughter.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:09 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think the compass is also helpful for determining how one's efforts might be best directed in order to effect change. That is, I'm -9.5, -9 (double checked just now; not -8, -9 as I said above), nearly all of the politicians in the US are in the upper right quadrant - this isn't just margin of error (though without the methodology I suppose it theoretically could be), there is a wide gap in how I view the world and how many of our politicians view the world. And that's ok. But it also means that advocating for many of my viewpoints through legislative channels will probably equate to me shouting into the void. Achieving change through legislation, or even through the court system, is a task better suited for someone with a different temperament. I am more interested in and motivated by efforts that route around the system - things like, historically, the underground railroad or the Jane Collective or, more recently, stuff like wikileaks or the rolling jubilee. There will always be a need for people who are working outside of the strictly-legal system, and I'm probably most helpful to society by concentrating on those types of efforts rather than working at legislating the margins (also important, but not my thing).
posted by melissasaurus at 4:15 PM on March 21, 2016


Transcript of Trump's meeting with the Washington Post editorial board.

Man, that guy goes off on a lot of tangents about fancy buildings.
posted by teponaztli at 4:18 PM on March 21, 2016


I really want to see someone like James Lipton read that Trump transcript (please make this happen Conan O'Brien!).
posted by melissasaurus at 4:37 PM on March 21, 2016


TRUMP: A hand with little fingers coming out of a stem. Like, little. Look at my hands. They’re fine. Nobody other than Graydon Carter years ago used to use that. My hands are normal hands. During a debate, he was losing, and he said, “Oh, he has small hands and therefore, you know what that means.” This was not me. This was Rubio that said, “He has small hands and you know what that means.” Okay? So, he started it. So, what I said a couple of days later … and what happened is I was on line shaking hands with supporters, and one of supporters got up and he said, “Mr. Trump, you have strong hands. You have good-sized hands.” And then another one would say, “You have great hands, Mr. Trump, I had no idea.” I said, “What do you mean?” He said, “I thought you were like deformed, and I thought you had small hands.” I had fifty people … Is that a correct statement? I mean people were writing, “How are Mr. Trump’s hands?” My hands are fine. You know, my hands are normal. Slightly large, actually. In fact, I buy a slightly smaller than large glove, okay? No, but I did this because everybody was saying to me, “Oh, your hands are very nice. They are normal.” So Rubio, in a debate, said, because he had nothing else to say … now I was hitting him pretty hard. He wanted to do his Don Rickles stuff and it didn’t work out. Obviously, it didn’t work too well. But one of the things he said was “He has small hands and therefore, you know what that means, he has small something else.” You can look it up. I didn’t say it.
Oh. My. God. If anyone needs me I'll be smashing my head against this desk.
posted by mmoncur at 4:43 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


mmoncur, I thought you typed that out as a parody.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:47 PM on March 21, 2016 [10 favorites]


Yeah, I was just trying to think of something witty to say about Poe's law. How do you satirize this when the repetition and the defensive narcissism are already so extreme? If I were a sketch writer for SNL, I would throw my hands up in the air. This guy satirizes himself. (And when he's president, it isn't going to be funny.)
posted by puddledork at 4:50 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Dooneese Trump?
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:54 PM on March 21, 2016


I wrote to the political compass site and got their methodology, plugged in updated data including the last few months, and got a more current result. They said they will look at replacing their current one with the more accurate version.
posted by Justinian at 5:01 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


It was slight hyperbole when I said progressives 100% agree, and I was talking about a lot of frequent posters who have not been in this conversation today but seem gung ho Sanders/you're not a progressive if you're not for Sanders people. I haven't seen that today.


Thanks zutalors!, that definitely gives me more perspective.

Full disclosure, as a Sanders supporter, I don't agree with you but I respect that we have differences in opinion. I'm tempted to rebut/debate some of the points you raised, but I think at this point both sides have done a good job of presenting data and opinion already (and are continuing to do so), and at the end of the day it's our own prerogative to make informed choices.


No problem! I don't mind disagreement, I just don't like the idea that I'm disagreeing because of my demographic or not having read enough.
posted by zutalors! at 5:07 PM on March 21, 2016


I tried to take the Political Compass poll as Hillary Clinton and it placed me right around where they placed Bernie Sanders (a bit more Libertarian, a bit less left). Then I took it as Bernie and he's in the middle of the lower left quadrant. I tried to be as accurate as possible in my responses (although I'm not totally sure how either feels about abstract art). Do it yourself, it doesn't take that long. I think the results they present for the various politicians are pretty disingenuous, I really don't know how you get Clinton that far into the upper right quadrant without deliberately misrepresenting her political views.
posted by one_bean at 5:09 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


What? Did you not see my 100% guaranteed to be accurate chart?
posted by Justinian at 5:11 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


This transcript is so ridiculous that I would not have believed it was real if there was not a video to accompany it. At one point he complains about how unfair the Washington Post has been to him--which makes their choice to post this unedited and without comment particularly pointed.
Right now, look, you know, I went to a great school, I was a good student and all. I am an intelligent person. My uncle, I would say my uncle was one of the brilliant people. He was at MIT for 35 years. As a great scientist and engineer, actually more than anything else. Dr. John Trump, a great guy. I’m an intelligent person. I understand what is going on. Right now, I had 17 people who started out. They are almost all gone. If I were going to do that in a different fashion I think I probably wouldn’t be sitting here. You would be interviewing somebody else. But it is hard to act presidential when you are being … I mean, actually I think it is presidential because it is winning. And winning is a pretty good thing for this country because we don’t win any more. And I say it all the time. We do not win any more. This country doesn’t win. We don’t win with trade. We don’t win with … We can’t even beat ISIS. And by the way, just to answer the rest of that question, I would knock the hell out of ISIS in some form.
posted by Anonymous at 5:17 PM on March 21, 2016


Karen Attiah: I asked Trump a policy question. Then he called me ‘beautiful.’

Ms. Attiah is the Washington Post's Opinions Deputy Digital Editor.
posted by zarq at 5:18 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I can't believe he goes on about the marble in that building. He has to be one of the least self-aware people possible. Reading that transcript, it's obvious no-one has ever told this guy to just shut up and listen. And ending on nukes the way he did is just fucking terrifying.
posted by valkane at 5:29 PM on March 21, 2016


I just don't like the idea that I'm disagreeing because of my demographic or not having read enough.

I agree (if I understand you correctly), I just think direct MeFi debates generally deteriorate into noise due to the unstructured commenting system here (and the nature of anonymous online discourse).

Which is why I'll continue to share and read material from all sides since (IMO) discussing specific articles/issues is usually more constructive.
posted by kyp at 5:29 PM on March 21, 2016


FFS one of the three speeches has been on YouTube since 2014. I've pointed this out several times, and the refusal of Sanders supporters to acknowledge this (or, obviously, to even go look at it) is -- I don't know what. Denial? Disingenuous?

The previous occasion I remember you pointing this out caused a person to cast doubt that this was, in fact, one of the speeches in contention.

I'm going to be more blunt. The Clinton Foundation get-together you link to is absolutely not one of the speeches in contention. If you didn't know that before, you do now. Here is a comprehensive list of her private speeches given after she left State and before she announced her candidacy on April 12, 2015.

Scanning the list ought to strongly suggest two important ideas worth considering. First, that our political system is corrupt. While Clinton and her hubby are not unusual in their behavior (plenty of insider DC types cash in on their public service once the enter the private sector), exploiting their special abilities to the tune of $139 million does suggest that they are more than willing participants in a system which is corrosive to our democratic republic. For fans of the recent musical: What would Hamilton say?

Second, the significant number of speeches given to the financial sector clearly indicate that she does not mind her association with the FIRE economy folks. After all, she's willing to stand on a stage and say, "Well, I don't know. That's what they offered." Which is both a deception and a lie, by the way. That she thinks it is acceptable to deceive voters by deflecting and downplaying this important vector in her private life is pretty bad, but that she would lie and say that she was not the one to set the price for her speech(es) is even more disgraceful. Again, take look at the list--the number 225,000 is a pretty frequent "offering."

Furthermore, and this has been raised any number of times--what does it mean that she refuses to release the transcripts? Two things. First, in the context of the particular kabuki of our political system, her unwillingness to be open with the content of her comments is a purely calculated matter designed to massage her exposure to the public about where she stands with respect to the FIRE sector. Second, and this is more important to me as a regular citizen who has (in my comparatively insignificant life) actually made decisions based on my sense of right and wrong which have most definitely hurt my pocketbook, it's highly suggestive of a flaw in her character which does not warrant trustworthiness.

Given the ideas on which Sanders is campaigning, it's perfectly acceptable to ask for a transcript release. Is it an attack? I suppose so, but what of it? The stakes are pretty high here. Going even further, I'd argue that the Sanders campaign has been pretty gentle with regard to this aspect of their campaign. If he really wanted to make a full and complete argument regarding what could be described as pure and simple greed by the Clintons then he could do so. I suspect that some among us rather would wish that Sanders were not such a kind person in this regard.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:46 PM on March 21, 2016 [13 favorites]


"Clinton and her hubby?" Really?
posted by zutalors! at 5:51 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


  • Sanders Outlines Middle East Policy - "Sanders speech on Israel & Palestine, far from perfect, but stark contrast w/Netanyahu talking points Clinton spewed."*
  • Jeff Sachs: "Hillary got millions for AIPAC speech, from billionaire Haim Saban. More hawkish, more funds. Simple & dangerous."* (via Billmon)
  • Billmon: "One way to look at HRC's over the top pandering at AIPAC today is in context of what's happened to the center left in Israel..." (1/13)
  • DNC chairwoman: "There's 'no shred of evidence to suggest that I’m favoring Hillary Clinton.' "*
  • We're Still in Nixonland: 20 theses about the state of politics today - "Lizza reports that a fair number of establishment Democrats are quietly concerned about all the investigations of Clinton... Sanders, interestingly enough, has pretty much refused to go after her on that count: in part because he realizes the long game here is not to win against Clinton on personal grounds (i.e., she's untrustworthy) but to win against her on political grounds: she represents neoliberalism."
  • Bernie Sanders is the Most Pro-Market Candidate: "Creating a competitive market system."*
  • You may not subscribe to many of Sanders’s ideas—particularly, those on limiting trade. But one thing is certain: he is really beginning a political and economical revolution. According to our research, Sanders is the only candidate in this race, and actually in the last few decades, who is not taking money from special interest groups...
    Olson and Stigler predicted that special interest groups carry the day because they can organize and lobby. They can do this because they can raise a significant amount of resources to push their agenda... The best way to see that is in the vast and growing amount of money being spent by special interest groups on lobbying and campaign contributions, as well as the rents extracted in many industries that get de facto protection from competition. The dispersed public was not relevant to this game. Until 2016.
  • Kenneth Arrow: There Is Regulatory Capture, But It Is By No Means Complete - "A Nobel laureate on why we should have Canadian style single payer health care."*
  • I don’t consider myself an expert on the financial industry, but the fact that the financial industry is responsible for something like 30 percent of all profits seems rather remarkable. I am startled by the size of the financial industry and what it means. I can’t believe this is really needed for the allocation of resources. A lot of it is going to be rent-seeking. It creates a diversion of resources, especially human capital, and not only does it create problems for the legitimacy of income distribution, but that also means resources diverted for this purpose [rent-seeking] can’t be used elsewhere.
  • What Americans Don't Get About Nordic Countries - "Far from utopian, Nordic-style social democracy is practical counterpart to evolutions in capitalism."*
posted by kliuless at 6:00 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Mod note: Couple comments deleted. Let's skip having a fight over whether it's good or bad or whatever to use "hubby" -- objection noted, let's move on.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:06 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


it's highly suggestive of a flaw in her character which does not warrant trustworthiness.

I mostly agree with you, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it's a flaw in her character. It doesn't need to be in order for her ties to Wall St. to be something worth considering. There's at least the potential for a conflict of interest on some level if she's giving speeches behind closed doors for huge speaking fees to the very industry that - and everyone seems to agree on this - needs to be better regulated.

I want to know what she said, not because I think she's fundamentally untrustworthy, but because I don't feel comfortable that a presidential candidate has an opaque relationship with financial firms. It's one thing to trust someone, but it's another to have to trust them so much that we don't even need to know what they said to Wall Street. She spoke to Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and other large firms that have been instrumental in creating a financial atmosphere that is hostile to a large number of people. I'm not saying transcripts will reveal collusion with these firms, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to want to know what Clinton said to them.
posted by teponaztli at 6:13 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wow, Wolf Blitzer is really grilling Trump right now!

j/k of course he's not
posted by sallybrown at 6:22 PM on March 21, 2016 [10 favorites]


"nobody respects women more than me" -Trump
posted by zutalors! at 6:23 PM on March 21, 2016


"nobody is more pro-Israel than I am!" -Trump
posted by sallybrown at 6:25 PM on March 21, 2016


he's so disgusting
posted by zutalors! at 6:26 PM on March 21, 2016


Jesus, that Washington post transcript is just unbelievable.
posted by gofargogo at 6:32 PM on March 21, 2016


"we’ve increased the quality of the finishes substantially, marble finishes, very high quality of marble!" -Trump
posted by teponaztli at 6:36 PM on March 21, 2016


Jill Stein is live tweeting this CNN thing. Pretty good. I do wish she was there. Or at least these points were being raised.
posted by Trochanter at 6:42 PM on March 21, 2016


Noted, and agreed, teponaztli. As a political matter my judgment respecting her character is not important. I've indicated elsewhere that I'll vote for her in the general if it comes to that. But that's because I'm a Democrat (and have been for the past 40 years despite what I perceive to be all the betrayals by the DLC crowd.) The key idea here is to make a public servant be responsive to the wishes of the people. That means exerting political pressure and creating a climate in which even a trimmer politician is forced to adopt a (any) policy.

And I should add that in my view we all have flaws in our characters, myself included. That said, some flaws are worse than others. Cashing in on one's public service is pretty high on my list--whether it be a Clinton or a Tom DeLay or any other of the thousands of folks who pass back and forth through those particular turnstiles.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:43 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


On illegal immigration:

"They have to pay a fine. They have to learn English." -Clinton

sighhhhhh
posted by sallybrown at 6:48 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


I find it hil-ar-ious that the Trump transcript begins:
FREDERICK RYAN JR., WASHINGTON POST PUBLISHER: Mr. Trump, welcome to the Washington Post. Thank you for making time to meet with our editorial board.

DONALD TRUMP: New building. Yes this is very nice. Good luck with it.
posted by sallybrown at 6:50 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


"They have to pay a fine. They have to learn English." -Clinton

Yo, it's too early for April Fool's.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:53 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm glad she's talking about how she's better at the job than trying to get the job.
posted by zutalors! at 6:53 PM on March 21, 2016


CincyBlues: The Clinton Foundation get-together you link to is absolutely not one of the speeches in contention. If you didn't know that before, you do now. Here is a comprehensive list of her private speeches given after she left State and before she announced her candidacy on April 12, 2015.

Interesting, thanks. It appears to be one of the other speeches mentioned in your list:
>>speeches that the Clintons delivered while directing the payment or honoraria to the Clinton Foundation
OK, so it's a different speech to Goldman Sachs that's even more secret. There are the words, for your careful dissection, on YouTube. And the scandal is... ?

Goldman was willing to pay her standard fee ($225K) for her talks because celebrity speakers draw potential clients who are fans. Look at the Goldman Sachs speaking program website -- it's full of sports figures (Shaquille O'Neal, Yao Ming, Claudio Reyna and Cobi Jones), military figures, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Maya Lin, Amory Lovins, Tom Brokaw, etc. Famous people.

A lot of videos are online, including the one I posted. It's not some smoke-filled room back door dealing, it's anodyne inspirational speeches with some analysis and words of wisdom thrown in. Brokers give their big clients tickets and hope to get more business as a result. She probably gve the same exact speech 3 times, as her talks were in different cities.

In Clinton's case, her relationship with Goldman Sachs was based on the "10,000 Women" program to train female entrepreneurs. As evil as GS might be, I like the idea of training women to get a piece of the pie. I still call that progress, all else being equal.
posted by msalt at 7:00 PM on March 21, 2016 [9 favorites]


Trump uses the word "very" 87 times in that transcript.
posted by zakur at 7:01 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


He has some really distinct mannerisms, doesn't he? Seems like easy fodder for comedians.
posted by msalt at 7:09 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton does give lots of speeches to business clients. I think I've even sat in a room for one of those speeches - the one she gave at the Simmons Women's Leadership Conference in Boston. I was selected to attend by my company, because apparently they thought I had "leadership potential" and I honestly thought it was an honor to sit at a table a few feet away from her. Whatever you think of her policies, there are few people who are quite as resilient as she is. And yes, there were many tables like that, paid for by many other companies, and I fully expect that Clinton received a fat speaker fee that night. So what? As msalt points out, many people command such speaking fees. I can assure you that she wasn't conspiring with the plutocracy that night - she was giving advice to an audience of mainly women of how they could survive and thrive in a world that was often hostile to them - advice I can think of few people more qualified to dole out. She talked about what she does when she receives criticism - she told us that she tries to take it seriously, but not personally, which I'm sure she has lots and lots of practice at doing.
posted by peacheater at 7:12 PM on March 21, 2016 [17 favorites]


Trump, on climate change: "I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons."
posted by dis_integration at 7:15 PM on March 21, 2016




Did we have all these silly names last time round? We've had Super Tuesday for a while but Super Tuesday 2? Western Tuesday?
posted by zutalors! at 7:40 PM on March 21, 2016


I wouldn't be surprised if many of Clinton's speeches were to the effect of what you're describing, peacheater, and there's certainly a difference between that and "you have a friend in me." If she went to all of these companies and spoke about the sexism in the corporate world, that would be just awesome. I'm glad she participated in the Women's Leadership Conference and in Goldman's initiative, and some of her engagements sound really positive. But what did she say to Morgan Stanley? What did she say to the healthcare industry? What did she say to the auto dealers and the boards of trade?

For me, it's not that her speaking engagements form the core of any huge complaint for me, but as long as they remain hidden, the best we can do is take it on faith that we know what they were about. I have a hard time with that because for years, one of the major complaints about Obama, especially from people like Krugman, was how many of his donors were huge Wall Street firms and business groups. I think it was Krugman who even pointed to Wall Street campaign contributions when he talked about the gentle treatment they got from the Obama administration. So I'm coming from a place of being critical of any kind of relationship with these groups, and it hasn't been only me thinking this all these years.

It may amount to nothing - Clinton's speeches to these same firms may have been of an entirely different substance than the sort of cozy relationship Krugman was talking about years ago, but until we actually know what they were about I'm not ready to just dismiss them out of hand.
posted by teponaztli at 7:55 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


Additional word/phrase counts from the WaPo transcript (Trump's words only):

huge - 2
incredible - 3
Hilllary - 3
Mexico - 3
Obama - 4
excellent - 4
"very, very" - 5
f you,f-you - 5
Muslim,Muslims- 5
amazing - 6
libel,libelous - 6
win,winning - 7
big - 8
building - 8
oil - 8
ISIS - 8
hate,hatred - 7
strong - 9
I say - 9
take - 10
jobs - 11
Trump - 11
I know - 12
really - 12
I don't know - 12
deal - 12
troops - 13
tremendous - 14
money - 15
a lot - 17
great - 17
China - 23
good - 25
want - 27
hand,hands - 28
me - 365
I - 408
posted by zakur at 8:13 PM on March 21, 2016 [13 favorites]


Of course, msalt, the problem is that all else is not equal. It's not even close. Any while I'm inclined to agree with you that any talks given in these circumstances probably do not have any dynamite revelations in them, the question remains: If this is so, then why is it so important to be deceptive and tell lies? If one has to do that to gain some political advantage, then I submit that that person may not be worthy of my trust.

Your unsubstantiated claim that her relationship to G/S is based on a worthy 10,000 Women Leadership program is problematic. While that is a noble cause, the fact is that the speeches in contention predate the Clinton Foundation talk. Furthermore, the issue isn't only G/S, it's all the other FIRE sector companies that coddle her with these fees, too. Nice gig if you can get it. Of course, some people might think that the cost to their soul is to high a price to pay to get such nice pay.

Let me reiterate that the essence of the problem is the cozy relation between our political class and the corporate sector to such an extent that quite often the will of the people is flat out ignored. At the heart of that is money. Not only money which funds campaigns, and not only money which props up an immense lobbying sector; it's the money given as a reward to those who are amenable to allowing this corrupt system to exist and flourish.

Folks can play all this off as though it were not significant if they wish. But the truth of the matter is that these practices imperil our political system and equally if not more importantly are fairly direct causes for why this economy has been looted for the past few decades at an increasing pace. People are making these decisions. People define the nature of the system by which we operate in both formal and informal ways. And some people garner tremendous private gains by supporting and maintaining this system while a much larger number of people are hurt by this system--in some cases terribly hurt.

The bottom line for me is this (and others may differ.) On the Democratic side, the current system is not only supported by Clinton and her fellow DLCers, it's exploited by them for their own personal gain. Even worse, in my opinion, both Clintons have a lot to answer for because they were among those who were the architects of the recent quarter century of this unjust, iniquitous calamity being forced on simple, hard-working folks who really just want to have a fair shake in life.

If you really think that this goes away with a lot of glad-handing happy talk, or that there will be some significant changes to our political or economic system should she win the election, well, prepare to be disappointed. The only way the common folk will gain is by denying power to those who abuse it.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:25 PM on March 21, 2016 [8 favorites]


The highest three say it all
posted by zutalors! at 8:25 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


Turns out BLM just needs a good pep talk, and you'll never guess the identity of the New Gipper (from WaPo transcript):

"There’s a racial division that’s incredible actually in the country. I think it’s as bad, I mean you have to say it’s as bad or almost as bad as it’s ever been. And there’s a lack of spirit. And one thing I thought that would happen, and it hasn’t happened, unfortunately, I thought that President Obama would be a great cheerleader for the country. And it just hasn’t happened. I mean we can say it has. But it hasn’t happened. When you look at the Ferguson problems and the Baltimore problems and the Detroit problems. And you know there’s a lack of spirit. I actually think I’d be a great cheerleader – beyond other things, the other things that I’d do – I actually think I’d be a great cheerleader for the country."
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:30 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am pretty sure that if Trump somehow doesn't get the Republican nomination, we could get him to run third-party just by calling him a pussy on Twitter.
posted by rifflesby at 8:30 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm thinking compromise -- Trump agrees to drop out of the race after Clinton promises that he will be appointed "cheerleader for the country."
posted by mmoncur at 8:35 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


If this is so, then why is it so important to be deceptive and tell lies? If one has to do that to gain some political advantage, then I submit that that person may not be worthy of my trust.

Because she's being careful. Handing over the transcripts at this point has no upside. The only thing that's going to happen are both sides are going to take out of context snippets and quotes and use them to prove their preconceived notions about Clinton. Why give them ammo? Why engage in a "trust fall" exercise if the catcher is just gonna let your fall flat on your back (and gleefully film it)?

But, this is not to say we shouldn't talk about the close relationship the government has to the financial sector. I'm just saying I understand why she's not releasing the transcripts and I would probably do the exact same thing.
posted by FJT at 8:37 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


I get it, FJT. I know perfectly well why she hasn't released the transcripts. Being mealy-mouthed about it is something one expects from pols. There some stuff coming from Sanders that I would consider mealy-mouthed, too. But not lies--which are deliberately misrepresentations of that which one otherwise knows to be true. And given that she has flat out lied in her explanation, what does that say about her real attitude towards me or anyone whom she wishes a vote from? Lastly, why should I be expected to give her a pass for it? Political expediency is one thing, thinking of me as a mark is another.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:47 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm not sure what the "lies" are in that context either
posted by zutalors! at 8:49 PM on March 21, 2016 [6 favorites]




No I meant in the context of what CincyBlues is saying. Also, Politifact had Clinton rated about as truthy as Bernie like a week ago and people here said it was biased.
posted by zutalors! at 8:59 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Her last fundraising email said she was counting on ME, PERSONALLY, to stop Trump, p sure my individual effort isn't going to make that much of a difference. Very deceptive!! Cannot trust this woman
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:05 PM on March 21, 2016 [7 favorites]




Yea though, I do think Clinton's unfavorable ratings have a lot to do with sexism, so it's a bit pointless to me. She has like an 80% approval rating among registered Democrats.
posted by zutalors! at 9:13 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am pretty sure that if Trump somehow doesn't get the Republican nomination, we could get him to run third-party just by calling him a pussy on Twitter.

Maybe that's what Elizabeth Warren was up to today. Regardless, it was pretty awesome.
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:18 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also she had a 69% approval rating as Secretary of State.
posted by zutalors! at 9:19 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think it's a combination of sexism, the vast right-wing hate machine, her own personal flaws, and the fact that she's one of the most high-profile iconic politicians in history that would magnify the polarization towards her.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:20 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


I agree that it's not just sexism, but it's hard not to see that as a huge weight.
posted by zutalors! at 9:21 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


This week's Slate Cover Story: A Week on the Trail With the “Disgusting Reporters” Covering Donald Trump: What it’s like to write about a candidate who hates you.

" If you want a picture of a future Trump presidency, imagine a reporter shouting questions into an empty void."
posted by zarq at 9:34 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


> She has like an 80% approval rating among registered Democrats.

"Registered Democrats" probably means less that it did 20 years ago. Among "Democratic leaners", about 1/3 aren't registered Dem. HRC needs them to win, and I doubt she's at 80% among them.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:34 PM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]




I'm sure he wasn't fired because he said that stuff, but because he made the mistake of saying it publicly.
posted by teponaztli at 9:44 PM on March 21, 2016


Check the date on that article, futz. It's from last year.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:50 PM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Washington Post, "Looking for America." A four-part feature story: "What's happening in America? What does it mean to be an American? These are questions defining a campaign unlike any other. For nearly 35 days, we crossed the nation looking for answers. This is what we found."

PART 1 | The great unsettling. Ahead of the Iowa caucuses, as many expressions of hope as fear could be found.

PART 2 | Longing for something lost. In New Hampshire, the feeling is widespread. But what it truly means varies across demographics.

PART 3 | Awaiting a political awakening. In Las Vegas and in South Carolina, people wonder if the American Dream is still attainable.

PART 4 | A nation, divided. In Michigan and Texas, voters choose between hope and fear.
posted by zarq at 9:53 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Registered Democrats" probably means less that it did 20 years ago. Among "Democratic leaners", about 1/3 aren't registered Dem. HRC needs them to win, and I doubt she's at 80% among them.

Those figures don't show that; they have nothing to do with registration. Polls almost never care about registration in nationwide polls because around 20 states don't have partisan registration.

I can't immediately find a recent poll with partisan crosstabs but in general independent-leaners are behaviorally almost identical to weak partisans. Sure, it could happen, but it would be weird if they were notably different about approval for Clinton.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:04 PM on March 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


oh man. apologies.
posted by futz at 10:08 PM on March 21, 2016


Ah, you're right, those numbers are self-identification, not registration. My bad.

I still think you're going to have lower approvals of HRC, heck of politicians in general, among people who aren't party registered. But I've got no data to back it up.

/Reply to ROU_Xenophobe
posted by benito.strauss at 10:09 PM on March 21, 2016


Speaking of sexism, here's something that will be interesting.

That Washington Post transcript of Trump's interview contains some Trump lines that are AT LEAST as confused and stupid and wrong as anything Sarah Palin said 8 years ago. (The worst climate change is Nuclear weapons?).

I'm not normally one to defend Mrs. Palin, but let's see if Trump gets as widely mocked over the next few days as she did back then.

I know Trump is already widely mocked, but few people are outright calling him stupid.
posted by mmoncur at 11:12 PM on March 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


here's a chart of the percentage of political contributions from big donors for each of the major candidates from 'is bernie the most pro-market candidate?'* (note that after sanders, trump is the least 'bought'...)

also btw, brad delong on the rumpublicans banana republicans' transformation from the party of opportunity to the party of fear: "the key to understanding the moral and—I hope—political bankruptcy of the Republican Party lies in its transformation from a party of those who think they will have wealth, and so have something to gain, into a party of those who think they have had wealth of some sort, and so have something to lose. The first party is very friendly to enterprise, progress, growth, change, and creative destruction. The second is quite hostile to them: it is friendly to established property alone."
posted by kliuless at 11:18 PM on March 21, 2016 [3 favorites]




Your unsubstantiated claim that her relationship to G/S is based on a worthy 10,000 Women Leadership program is problematic. While that is a noble cause, the fact is that the speeches in contention predate the Clinton Foundation talk.

According to your list, Hillary gave her infamous 3 talks to Goldman Sachs on June 4th, 2013, October 24, 2013, and October 29, 2013. The video I linked was a 4th talk on Sept. 23, 2014 and was an explicit celebration of the program's success.

Hillary got involved with the 10,000 Women program -- which trains underserved (ie minority) women entrepreneurs around the globe -- no later than March 8, 2011 when she announced a program to partner the State Department with Goldman Sachs to expand the program to more countries around the world.
posted by msalt at 1:01 AM on March 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump's list of foreign policy advisers baffles GOP experts

Gotta love the 29-year old Trump adviser who lists Model UN on his resume. My younger daughter is 16 and attending her second Model UN soon.
posted by msalt at 1:03 AM on March 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


I know Trump is already widely mocked, but few people are outright calling him stupid.

I know lots of us called Palin stupid, but I think that was unfair. I think both Trump and Palin share a kind of wilful ignorance and lack of curiosity born of a bizarre self confidence. Both, however, were canny. I think Trump has far more cunning, but he's clearly just as ignorant. Only he's more capable of just pure cunning bullshittery of the conman huckster sort. You can see him running the con the whole time in that wapo transcript. The first rule of the con is just keep talking. Keep your mark on the hook until you can reel em in. Palin wasn't so practiced at the con, that's all.
posted by dis_integration at 2:55 AM on March 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't think you're wrong, dis_integration, but also don't feel like keeping Just Plain Stupid in the mix in either case is entirely out of line.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:16 AM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]




> "Both, however, were canny. I think Trump has far more cunning ..."

I don't.

I see nothing in anything he's saying to indicate a cunning guy with a plan. It sounds to me like a guy desperately out of his depth and utterly unaware of it, flailing around aimlessly.

I hear this "Trump is cunning, don't underestimate him" a lot. I think he shouldn't be underestimated, but I don't think it's because he's cunning. I think he's an idiot. I just think it doesn't matter.

He doesn't need to be cunning. If he stomps around being the ignorant, narcissistic, racist, and famous bully he is, there are a lot of people who will vote for that. No matter what nonsense comes out of his mouth.

I think people want to imagine he's cunning because they want there to be some rational reason, any rational reason, that he's getting so many votes. He must be a master manipulator of mass emotion. He must have an instinctive knowledge of how to tap into the deep-seated etc. etc.

I disagree. I think he's just a not very bright guy who lucked into a movement that was waiting for someone terrible to slot himself in as a figurehead. That's it.

I don't think he's smart, I don't think he's cunning, and I don't think it matters a damn.
posted by kyrademon at 4:38 AM on March 22, 2016 [13 favorites]


It is terrifying to think that something like the attack on Brussels could happen a year from now and Donald Trump would be the one at the Oval Office end of the phone.

Will this cause people to become serious and wise up about his capabilities? Or double down?
posted by sallybrown at 5:13 AM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


man, HRC AIPAC speech is disappointing. And I say this as a supporter.
posted by angrycat at 5:15 AM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


@realdonaldTrump: Do you all remember how beautiful and safe a place Brussels was. Not anymore, it is from a different world! U.S. must be vigilant and smart!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:15 AM on March 22, 2016


I don't think he's smart, I don't think he's cunning, and I don't think it matters a damn.

I don't think he is cunning in the sense of having a House of Cards style masterplan, but he is definitely cunning in terms of seeing and taking advantage of an opportunity at a given moment, and then pivoting to the next opportunity. He's clearly not smart in any intellectual way, but he has taken advantage of (and in some ways control over) a divided and dysfunctional GOP primary in a way that no one else has even come close.

I do worry about him in a general election, because he will show the same cunning and ability to find weak points, and so far it is working amazingly well for him, and allowing him to just bypass all the usual requirements (such as for qualified advisors).
posted by Dip Flash at 5:15 AM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


HRC and any other anti-Trump groups should start running commercials with a bunch of very silent post-nuclear holocaust scenes. Add few cuts to show post-nuclear migrants, some of them wearing ragged 'Make America Great Again' hats and t-shirts, show a few toppled cars and trucks with Trump bumper stickers. Run it every day, everywhere between now and the general.
posted by localhuman at 5:30 AM on March 22, 2016


More garbage from Corey Lewandowski:
There is also talk among Trump’s traveling press corps about his behavior toward women. Politico first reported that Lewandowski has made “sexually suggestive” comments to female journalists that one recipient described as “completely inappropriate in a professional setting.”

In conversations with reporters, he has expressed frustration with female journalists covering the campaign while also voicing a wish to have sex with them. And sources told BuzzFeed News that more than once, Lewandowski has called female reporters late at night to come on to them, often not sounding entirely sober. Some in the press corps joke that if Lewandowski is calling after a certain hour, women are better off not answering.
posted by sallybrown at 5:33 AM on March 22, 2016


one_bean: I think the results they present for the various politicians are pretty disingenuous, I really don't know how you get Clinton that far into the upper right quadrant without deliberately misrepresenting her political views.

WP: Political Compass -- Bias, Criticism, and Alternatives

RationalWiki: Political Compass

Why the Political Compass is Wrong (and Libertarians are now on the Left)

Why is the Political Compass bad?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:00 AM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ain't surprised by Clinton's AIPAC speech. I'd expect she'll more hawkish than Obama officially, but perhaps the same in practice. We'll need another Chelsea Manning to expose more details of the drone war and help get it stopped.

I believe the real disaster Clinton will bring will be trade deals like TPP and TIPP. It's clear her current wishy washy position exists entirely to placate left-wing voters who might switch to Sanders, but that's she'll fully support them once elected.

It'll be wonderful if the Democrats win some seats back due to Trump, but majorities sound unlikely. I think this limits the upside from Clinton's position on health care, etc., but leaves her plenty of room to negotiate disastrous trade deals.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:01 AM on March 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hate to Say It, But This is Why You Give a Speech Like Hillary Clinton's AIPAC Speech:
You might have been appalled by Hillary Clinton's hardline AIPAC speech, but, for better or worse, this is why she thinks hawkishness makes political sense for her. Yes, Barack Obama positioned himself as a peacemaker and won two elections anyway, but he won them during a period in which Americans distrusted hawkishness, and that period seems to be ending. Every terrorist attack pushes the bad memories of the Iraq War further into the past for a lot of Americans. When majorities favor sending ground troops to fight ISIS in some polls, it's hard to say that Americans are still wary of war.

[...]

But [Trump's] saber-rattling -- "bomb the shit out of them" and all that -- is much more memorable than his occasional paleoconservative skepticism about certain hawkish policies. Trump comes off as a tough guy. After a terrorist attack, Americans are primed to want a tough guy.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:51 AM on March 22, 2016


Oh great, an opportunity for these clowns to turn ghoulish.
posted by Artw at 7:06 AM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hate to Say It, But This is Why You Give a Speech Like Hillary Clinton's AIPAC Speech:

It's been really fascinating to watch the Left and the Right band together and attack her over it, for different reasons. The Left is clearly upset that she's taking a pro-Israel and more hawkish stance than the current administration. The Right unsurprisingly, calls her a liar. Says her record with President Obama's administration is anti-Israel, and she's not to be trusted. The GOP literally put out a 17-page briefing document called "Hillary Clinton: No Friend to Israel." and issued a statement claiming she's "attempt[ing] to whitewash a record of undermining Israel’s interests when she was Secretary of State."
posted by zarq at 8:06 AM on March 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Perhaps the only boiling down of positions to a single axis more empty and annoying than liberal/conservative is pro/anti-Israel.
posted by phearlez at 8:13 AM on March 22, 2016 [20 favorites]


It's been really fascinating to watch the Left and the Right band together

Describing this sort of dynamic as "banding together" seems inappropriate. Leftists within the Democratic party's base have reasons to be disappointed with Hillary' foreign policy, and of course anyone on the right has reasons to hate Hillary, but those reasons are disjoint sets as far as I can tell.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:13 AM on March 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


True.
posted by zarq at 8:16 AM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just another reminder that the guy in 2nd place is just as bad as the guy in first: Ted Cruz Calls for Security Patrols in America's "Muslim Neighborhoods"
posted by zombieflanders at 8:55 AM on March 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


This is all quite disturbing to me. As I have mentioned here, I live in a "Muslim neighborhood", on a street with a number of Muslim businesses, and I am definitely starting to worry about people coming in here to start stuff. I mean, like most "Muslim neighborhoods" in the US, it's actually just "a neighborhood with enough Muslims to support, like, a video rental place, a few coffee shops and a store selling halal meat", but whatever. I still hope that since we in Minnesota have actual familiarity with actual Muslims, this won't get much traction here, as it's obviously dependent on people not knowing any Muslims, but it's disturbing all the same.

For the record, of the handful of unpleasant interactions with people I've had in seventeen years of living here, zero have been with people who were identifiably Muslim. Certainly since I am very visibly queer and gender non-conforming, I'm sure that at least some conservative Muslims do not approve of me, but they've just kept that to themselves like normal, polite human beings.
posted by Frowner at 9:31 AM on March 22, 2016 [16 favorites]


By which I mean that it's a contrast with what I hear from other people who've gotten hassled by members of fundamentalist non-Muslim groups, and people don't say anything about how we need inspections or whatever in those neighborhoods. Most non-Muslims in this country will believe anything about Muslims, and they forget that Islam is politically diverse just like any other large religion, so you get radicals and leftists and fundies and middle of the road people and not-super-observant people, etc etc as anyone with an ounce of deductive power would expect.

Even if I go home tonight and some random Muslim guy walking out of the coffee shop shouts, like, a slur at me (which I think is vanishingly unlikely), that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the neighborhood as a whole, though.
posted by Frowner at 9:42 AM on March 22, 2016


You might have been appalled by Hillary Clinton's hardline AIPAC speech, but, for better or worse, this is why she thinks hawkishness makes political sense for her. Yes, Barack Obama positioned himself as a peacemaker and won two elections anyway, but he won them during a period in which Americans distrusted hawkishness, and that period seems to be ending. Every terrorist attack pushes the bad memories of the Iraq War further into the past for a lot of Americans. When majorities favor sending ground troops to fight ISIS in some polls, it's hard to say that Americans are still wary of war.

Dig into the polls and you'll see that for almost every relevant question where responses are broken out by political affiliation, hawkish Dems and independents are in the minority. Not so clear to me that distrust for hawkishness is on the wane.
posted by Lyme Drop at 10:01 AM on March 22, 2016


More to the point, based on what independents and Dems want as evidenced in those polls, it's reasonable to question whether hawkishness is merely a politically expedient stance for Clinton.
posted by Lyme Drop at 10:08 AM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why Sanders Trails Clinton Among Minority VotersOne important reason for this may be that African-Americans have experienced somewhat more favorable economic trends in recent years. While still worse off than whites, African-Americans have seen their jobless rate fall a little further than whites have, relative to a prerecession average. Furthermore, the decline has been faster for African-Americans in the last year.

Who Is the Hillary Voter?If Democrats are so angry, Clinton would not be in the position she is today. Is it really so farfetched to claim that quite a few Democrats aren’t voting for Sanders precisely because he seems angry? Which isn’t to suggest that people aren’t angry—certainly many Republican primary voters seem to be. Rather, it is to suggest that voters who aren’t angry are still showing up at the polls, despite being ignored in news stories.
posted by FJT at 10:29 AM on March 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


It really does seem to be a buried narrative that Hillary has gotten more votes than anyone else so far. Trump claimed he had that which was another outright lie he wasn't challenged on.
posted by zutalors! at 10:34 AM on March 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Truthiness was made for Trump. Just keep spewing things that sound correct, most will stick.
posted by readery at 10:39 AM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


That New Republic article is some great food for thought, FJT. I think the media narrative and online discussion is really missing the appeal of Clinton as basically the lone remaining candidate from any party who can lay claim to just being no-nonsense competent and effective. When I say competent and effective, that's with no reference to values or positions. Maybe another way to put it is presidential. Bernie has some great policies and positions that clearly resonate with a lot of people, but there's an aura of "old man yells at cloud," hanging around him, and he doesn't have the same kind of high-profile history of government service that Hillary does. The Republican candidates are all terrifying shitshows to varying degrees, and every single one of them is actively repulsive or disappointing on some level.

Try a thought experiment: imagine every single one of the candidates giving one of the bog standard presidential speeches post-diplomatic event/tragedy/national milestone. Put aside their policies and party affiliations. Which ones don't make you cringe in horror or embarrassment? Probably only Bernie, Hillary, and Kasich, right? That's sort of dire.

I don't think the mass of not angry, not especially loud Clinton voters are necessarily actively refusing to buy into prevailing wisdom about their candidate. I think they're looking at a rather frightening field of candidates and thinking, "Clinton seems safe and sane and presidential, and her policies are unlikely to destroy the nation as we know it." It's a real low bar to clear, but that's where we're at.
posted by yasaman at 11:05 AM on March 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


You just, in realtime, read that article and came up with a theory to explain Clinton's success so far that takes it completely for granted that nobody is excited about Clinton, nobody is enthused about Clinton, that she's a failsafe candidate, only doing well because everyone else is awful, etc.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:11 AM on March 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say or imply that no one is excited about Clinton or that she's only doing so well because everyone else is terrible. I was trying to expand on the article's characterization of the large number of Clinton voters who are speaking with their vote and not necessarily being heard, at least not in the way other voters are according to the media narrative.

I'm a Clinton supporter who's excited and enthused about her. I know we exist! I just think it's a mistake to discount the huge number of voters who wouldn't necessarily classify themselves as "supporters," who are probably neither high-information nor low-information, but who nevertheless are voting for Hillary for a wide variety of reasons. I happen to think one of the big reasons is that, without even considering policy positions or values, Hillary is the most qualified, presidential candidate left in the field, and that that counts for a lot in an election season like this, more perhaps than it ever has in recent history.
posted by yasaman at 11:25 AM on March 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


I just think it really speaks to the strength and pervasiveness of the idea that nobody actually likes Clinton because we all know she's awful and a liar etc and her only grudgingly-conceded positive trait is that she's perfunctorily competent at her job. And I think that has a lot to do with the reason her enthusiastic supporters aren't super vocal about it the way Sanders and Trump voters are.

Just look at how their respective "gaffes" play out here in these threads

CLINTON GAFFE: "Ugh, god, not again, she's unelectable!"
SANDERS GAFFE: "Meh."
TRUMP GAFFE: "THIS ONLY STRENGTHENS HIM, WE'RE DOOMED."
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:31 AM on March 22, 2016 [17 favorites]


I wish we could ship our lovely mefi mods off to banhammer this man or leave a mod note

It’s your fault. This is the painful message Donald Trump has for Europe today. As Brussels – a city he once described as a “hellhole” – reels from the shock of the deadly blasts at Zavantem airport and Maelbeek subway station, the would-be leader of the free world wants everyone to know who is to blame. source
posted by infini at 11:42 AM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Personally, I've given up on even engaging with the unlikability/untrustworthy angle because there's just no way to reason someone out of it, and the narrative is so fucking entrenched at this point. I like Hillary. I recognize that any personal antipathy I've ever felt for her, aside from disagreements about some of her policy positions or actions, has been largely the result of internalized misogyny. Good luck getting other people to admit that much though.

I'm just not into playing misogyny bingo every time she's discussed, and if that makes me one of the mass of people quietly voting for Hillary without waving signs and wearing t-shirts, so be it. I'm conserving my energy for the general.
posted by yasaman at 11:59 AM on March 22, 2016 [14 favorites]


Not all dislike of Clinton has to do with misogyny. To me, like, this is a woman, who, in 2016, said that Nancy Reagan was an advocate for people with HIV/AIDS. That says something stunningly bad about Hillary Clinton's character.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:02 PM on March 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm conserving my energy for the general.

the misogyny will be off the damn wall in the general.
posted by zutalors! at 12:04 PM on March 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Some updates on Hawaii:
Our Democratic presidential preference poll is on Saturday (most news sources call it a "caucus" but it's just a preference poll, there's no advocating/changing sides). The poll is just for the presidential election, the other primaries are in August; people can register at the door, there is no photo ID requirement (but people can also register online if they have a Hawaii license).

Jane Sanders visited Oahu and Maui over the past two days. A state house rep from Maui endorsed Sanders today. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign opened an office on Maui on Sunday. I've seen some sign waving for Bernie, but nothing for Clinton so far (though I don't commute so I'm sure I've missed some activity). Hawaii doesn't allow billboards and other large advertising like that, so sign waving is an important tradition for local politics. There have been disputes about regulating political yard signs (and the constitutionality of doing so); I've only seen one yard sign on Maui and it was on the edge of a big farm on a not-frequently-traveled rural road. I guess these Sanders ads are also airing here this week; according to that article Clinton hasn't purchased any air time before the caucus.

I've heard that Hawaii favors Sanders, which maps with what I've seen here on Maui, but Honolulu is large enough to cancel out any neighbor island votes and I have no idea what the situation is like there. Most of Hawaii's politicians (incl. both US Senators) have endorsed Clinton, and it's also possible people think Sanders has been too critical of Obama. The biggest question is turnout -- it was unprecedentedly high in 2008, but that's because of Obama; the GOP had a high turnout this year, but that contest also had higher stakes; I think most people here would be fine with either Dem so there's less incentive to vote (plus voting is on Holy Saturday). Honolulu Civil Beat (a good Twitter account to follow for faster updates on Saturday's voting) had an interview with some local Clinton and Sanders supporters. On Maui, some important local issues are GMOs and Big Ag (ongoing Monsanto litigation), public lands/national parks, native Hawaiian sovereignty (ongoing lawsuit), medical marijuana (been legal for a while but dispensaries open this summer), public healthcare (Kaiser taking over the public hospital this year; friends who work there don't know about their jobs/pay yet), and dealing with worker displacement from the end of sugar production (this year is the last harvest; cane burning is bad for health/environment, but the industry employs a lot of people and farms 36k acres on Maui; many people are pushing for transition to industrial hemp), homelessness, and veterans issues.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:06 PM on March 22, 2016 [25 favorites]


what a substantive comment melissasaurus. One that I genuinely favorited so I can dig through it later.
posted by zutalors! at 12:08 PM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: A few comments deleted; let's try to keep it more to discussing the issues/the candidates/the events rather than metacommentary about whether things are good or bad at Mefi. That stuff can go over to MeTa if necessary.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:37 PM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


AIPAC has issued an apology for Trump's attack on President Obama.

Politico:
AIPAC president Lillian Pinkus read a statement from the stage on Tuesday to disavow Trump’s remarks.

“We say unequivocally that we do not countenance ad hominem attacks, and we take great offense to those that are levied against the United States of America from our stage,” Pinkus said. “While we may have policy differences, we deeply respect the office of the president of the United States and our president, Barack Obama.”

She also castigated attendees who responded positively to Trump’s comments.

“There are people in our AIPAC family who were deeply hurt last night, and for that, we are deeply sorry,” Pinkus said. “We are disappointed that so many people applauded a sentiment that we neither agree with or condone.”
This is what they get for inviting him in the first place. The organizers should have known better. Their audience certainly did: the walk-out protest was planned and made public at least a couple of weeks ago: Hundreds of rabbis walk out on Donald Trump's pro-Israel speech to protest 'hate and bigotry'
posted by zarq at 12:50 PM on March 22, 2016 [9 favorites]


Also from Politico: "Trump on Brussels: Told you so. Rivals accuse GOP front-runner of stoking fear amid crisis."
posted by zarq at 12:53 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]




I'm kind of amazed Politico didn't find pictures of a scorpion and a frog to illustrate that article, zarq. Though extending that much generosity to Pinkus might be too much. What exactly did they think someone like Trump was going to do with the platform? Best possible interpretation I can come up with is oh we expected awful, but in a direction we could tolerate.
posted by phearlez at 1:12 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


I saw Hundreds of Rabbis at CBGB back in '82.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:55 PM on March 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


I love the updates from Hawaii, melissasaurus! Now if only I was lying on a beach somewhere instead of just daydreaming about it...

not that all of Hawaii is like this...but the word itself is magical daydream potion
posted by sallybrown at 3:11 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm just not into playing misogyny bingo every time she's discussed, and if that makes me one of the mass of people quietly voting for Hillary without waving signs and wearing t-shirts, so be it. I'm conserving my energy for the general.

It's almost like there's a large segment of the population that supports Hillary but is less visible, that often gets shouted down or talked over, yet still keeps voting for her, that tends to dislike shouters, extremists and condescending old men. I wonder who it could be?
posted by msalt at 3:14 PM on March 22, 2016 [15 favorites]


Gotta love the 29-year old Trump adviser who lists Model UN on his resume. My younger daughter is 16 and attending her second Model UN soon.

She should send Trump her resume
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:18 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Model UN, hell. I can totally beat both Civ2 and SMAC on not just the easiest setting but the second easiest as well. I will totally advise him, especially about not trusting that fucker Gandhi.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:34 PM on March 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


especially about not trusting that fucker Gandhi

little known fact, the word 'thug' is actually Subcontinental in origin

we also gave the world 'pajamas' though so, eh, in conclusion India is a land of contrasts
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:11 PM on March 22, 2016 [10 favorites]




little known fact, the word 'thug' is actually Subcontinental in origin

As featured in the little-known movies Gunga Din and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:43 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


To me, like, this is a woman, who, in 2016, said that Nancy Reagan was an advocate for people with HIV/AIDS. That says something stunningly bad about Hillary Clinton's character.

Ah, yes. The stunningly bad character flaw of misspeaking, apologizing immediately afterwards, and following up with a lengthier apology where she clearly admits having made a mistake and gives credit to the actual activists.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 5:12 PM on March 22, 2016 [17 favorites]


Yeah, it was a stupid thing to say but the medium article/apology was pretty clear I think. She explicitly says she was wrong and doesn't go on to give some lengthy excuse or whatever, just "I made a mistake" and "the Reagans did not start a national conversation" along with actual credits and good policy positions.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:19 PM on March 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


The stunningly bad character flaw of misspeaking, apologizing immediately afterwards

This apology? I can understand why some people weren't reassured by that.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 5:36 PM on March 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


No, this one. Which was linked in Blue Jello Elf's post, which you quoted. I'm not sure how that was confusing.
posted by sallybrown at 5:39 PM on March 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


"Sorry, I fell over myself in the rush to pander."
posted by Artw at 5:42 PM on March 22, 2016 [9 favorites]




sallybrown, I was referring to the "apologizing immediately afterwards" part of Blue Jello Elf's post (you can tell because that's the part I quoted), which is a reference to her tweeted apology, not the Medium post. I'm not sure how that was confusing.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:10 PM on March 22, 2016




This week's Slate Cover Story: A Week on the Trail With the “Disgusting Reporters” Covering Donald Trump: What it’s like to write about a candidate who hates you.

Slate has a new podcast called Trumpcast and they interviewed the author of the piece on the most recent episode. Really interesting.

Also: New ad attacks Trump by slut-shaming his wife. To which Trump responded with this tweet.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:05 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


What in the utter fuck? I say for the millionth time.
posted by Artw at 7:09 PM on March 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Could someone explain how the "misspoke" thing is supposed to be parsed in a charitable manner? I've read through the Medium piece several times trying to understand, but it seems to boil down to "I said something, it was wrong, here's the truth and what I truly believe". At no point does it address why she said what she said, which seems like a reasonable question to answer if she wants people to trust her "true" beliefs.

If it was a ham-fisted attempt at being collegial, so be it, but own it. Mis-speaking involves choosing the wrong words to express oneself clearly, but it seems that she instead expressed false statements clearly. I'd really like to know why, because a true accounting of "why?" would speak volumes about her motivations.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:15 PM on March 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


To which Trump responded with this tweet.

Ugh. If Trump is referring to what I'm thinking of, that's going to be horrible.
posted by sallybrown at 7:15 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Of course I'm curious what you're thinking of. Meanwhile, Liz Mair (who was behind that ad) had a pretty decent comeback to the slut-shaming charge, I think.

"The fact is, the image in the ad — for which Melania Trump apparently willingly posed and has long been widely available online — isn’t objectionable because she’s nude or because it implies she’s ‘promiscuous’ (which, by the way, it doesn’t, though it does suggest she may have bigger hands than Donald)," Mair wrote in an email. "It’s objectionable because in typical porn/porn-lite fashion, it features her handcuffed to a briefcase, looking vulnerable and sends an implicit message of female subservience, as a lot of photos of tethered, naked women produced for male titillation and consumption do. And Mormon women don’t much like that."
posted by msalt at 7:20 PM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Now I have this picture in my head of Trump sneaking up behind Cruz' wife at a football game. Instead of poring Gatorade over her head, it's a can of pork and beans.
posted by CincyBlues at 7:20 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


You can't just drop that and not provide details, sallybrown. Is this an open secret kind of thing? I haven't heard anything about Cruz's wife aside from jokes about how she's able to stand him.
posted by yasaman at 7:22 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd really like to know why, because a true accounting of "why?" would speak volumes about her motivations.

I don't think there is an answer to "why" beyond "I got some facts mixed up". "Why" presumes that it was a deliberate, calculated statement rather than... a mistake. (BTW, the most likely explanation is that she got her late-1980s Republican first ladies mixed up.)
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 7:22 PM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


What in the utter fuck? I say for the millionth time.

Not only am I all out of fucks to give, I am running out of evens to not be able to.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:25 PM on March 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


Thanks for that link, zutalors. Living in Kentucky, the problems in the coal industry are pretty intractable. Not only politically divisive, but more importantly, as the Vox article points out, it's a real case of how to transition a dying industry in a humane fashion. Clinton's plan is serious and I appreciate that.
posted by CincyBlues at 7:28 PM on March 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


OK, so the charitable parse of "mis-spoke" is that she was just confused, and actually at that moment believed the following statement? I find that a lot more disquieting than the less charitable interpretations.

"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s. And because of both President Reagan and Mrs. Reagan, in particular Mrs. Reagan, we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it"

posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:30 PM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


I just don't think the Reagan thing is so stunningly bad or speaks such volumes except to people who already disliked Clinton. It's constantly coming up that she's some secret Republican or "pandering" to them but that's just a fantasy. In the context of that conversation where she said the thing about Reagan, it was at the tail end of a bunch of advocacy stuff she was saying about Reagan and wasn't a thesis she was advancing. It was an utter garbage comment that she needed to distance herself from, but I don't think there's much to say about it beyond that.
posted by zutalors! at 7:32 PM on March 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


At no point does it address why she said what she said, which seems like a reasonable question to answer if she wants people to trust her "true" beliefs.

Vox put forward a possible explanation.

In any case, when I think back on times I've said stupid shit without realizing it (i.e. an honest mistake), I've often used terms like "misspoke" when explaining myself. The real reason could be that I was tired or distracted or didn't fully think things through before I spoke or whatever dumb mistake that literally every person makes with no malicious intent whatsoever. In any event it was me saying something dumb due to a dumb error and there is often no good purpose that would be served if I explicitely said the exact reason why and I'm sure it's the same for Hillary. People literally question her motives and beliefs no matter what she does, so any explanation she would give would also be jumped on as proof of incompetence or similar anyway. She's kind of damned if she does, damned if she doesn't, so best to just make a genuine apology as she did and move on.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:33 PM on March 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Dan Savage, Larry Kramer, these are people who did not dislike Clinton before they attacked her. She did not misspeak, and she should have just owned up to it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:33 PM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


You can't just drop that and not provide details, sallybrown.

I don't think it's right to elaborate on much, because hopefully it's not made hay of by Donald and because it's really no one's business, but it relates to her having a difficult time coping with moving to Texas from DC for Ted's job. And I can very easily see Donald twisting that to something horrible.
posted by sallybrown at 7:33 PM on March 22, 2016


How could she "own up to it" beyond saying "I made a mistake, plain and simple"?
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 7:36 PM on March 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Monocle, The Foreign Desk (Podcast) - How to Beat Donald Trump: Interviews campaign experts from Australia, UK, Canada, Sweden, & Italy and how they would defeat him. Interesting to me just because of the non-American viewpoints.
posted by FJT at 7:38 PM on March 22, 2016


Fair enough, sallybrown! Much as I hate Cruz, I have no desire to see his wife or kids dragged into the pit of mud and shit and vipers that is the the current GOP race.
posted by yasaman at 7:41 PM on March 22, 2016


At no point does it address why she said what she said, which seems like a reasonable question to answer if she wants people to trust her "true" beliefs.

I really think it depends on the situation. This is true of virtually all politicians. There's a tendency to say what one thinks the audience wants to hear. If you want to be all things to all people, then there will be times when a person'll put a foot in their mouth. Apologies ought to be an acceptable part of the equation provided they are genuine and real and not just some effort at damage control to limit the number of votes lost by a misstatement.

This is, of course, different from flat out lying. Clinton wasn't lying with her initial HIV remarks; she was just saying something stupid. When she responded to Anderson Cooper about payment for the G/S speeches, she was lying.
posted by CincyBlues at 7:44 PM on March 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


How could she "own up to it" beyond saying "I made a mistake, plain and simple"?

Well, I guess, the problem here is that she can't really walk it back. The words were let loose and now they fly, irrevocable. What would make someone like me feel satisfied with the apology is if she explained why she said what she said. I don't think she was confused. I think she spoke deliberately. So why would she say those things? What was she trying to accomplish. "I've made a mistake, plain and simple" sounds to me like: I didn't realize the backlash my words were going to cause. If I had, I wouldn't have said those things. But why did she say them in the first place? Even if her explanation was: I don't know why I said that, I just got ahead of myself and once my mouth started going I didn't know where my tongue would take it.

I get why she can't make that sort of apology. It's a double bind for her, absolutely. She can't appear stupid, or weak, or confused, and she can't appear to have been pandering, or calculating, etc. She's really got no good option here. Except to go back in time and not have said it. I don't think she can give an apology that satisfies without doing political damage to herself. And that's a shame.
posted by dis_integration at 7:46 PM on March 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


Blue Jello Elf, "I made a mistake, plain and simple" is fine for literal confusion or ignorance. I don't think she's ignorant, and I don't get the feeling that the Reagan remark was born of confusion.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:50 PM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Dan Savage, Larry Kramer, these are people who did not dislike Clinton before they attacked her.

And Dan Savage accepted her apology and spoke well of her after it (on his latest Savage Lovecast). He was rightly angry about her initial comment.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:21 PM on March 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Arizona called for Clinton and Trump, no surprises there.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:23 PM on March 22, 2016


Hillary Clinton is Subtly Trolling Donald Trump's Hands (CNN) -
"Let me talk about what I will do, what I have done and what kind of commander and chief I will be. Because that is what I think that is what is at stake in this election," Clinton said in response to a Trump question. "We need steady, smart, strong minds and hands in the White House, in the Situation Room, to deal with the problems we face around the world."
More examples in the article.
posted by sallybrown at 9:10 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


For me the best part (CNN, linked above) was when he says "Do you want to respond to Trump's comments?" and Clinton says "No I don't. I don't want to respond to his constant stream of insults."

If Rubio or Cruz had managed that, instead of sinking to his level, I think they could have beat him.
posted by mmoncur at 9:30 PM on March 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


They tried that, it did nothing. They ignored his insults for months!
posted by Justinian at 9:47 PM on March 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


There just isn't a very long bench in the GOP these days. Paul Ryan is basically all that's left.

Paul Ryan's Latest Speech Said One Thing: He's Running. He took the stage at AIPAC, and he began courting delegates from the great state of Florida.
posted by homunculus at 9:53 PM on March 22, 2016


It was an utter garbage comment that she needed to distance herself from

Using the passive voice about her serious violation of behavior is not a good look. Millions of people died and millions more will die because the Reagans stood by and chose to do nothing about a developing epidemic. She said what she said in support of Reagan. It wasn't a comment that wafted out of the ether. She said it.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:42 PM on March 22, 2016


I feel like it's not too far a stretch to imagine a scene similar to something from Primary Colors, with a bunch of sweaty young people, ties all loose and with that 72-hour disheveled DGAF sprawl where it looks like they've melted onto the odd assortment of chairs in the room. Hillary is standing there with a file folder in her hands and saying incredulously, "Is this right? We go at Trump's hands? That's.... well, OK I mean if the numbers say..." and pretty much everyone groans at the same time.
posted by carsonb at 11:12 PM on March 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Shortly after Clinton leaves to do her TV spot and without moving everybody takes a few turns saying Short-fingered vulgarian out loud.
posted by carsonb at 11:15 PM on March 22, 2016


Call to Patrol Muslim Neighborhoods Marks New Low for Ted Cruz

Statistically, I believe, most murders in the US are committed by Christians. Shouldn't we patrol their neighborhoods too?
posted by mmoncur at 2:56 AM on March 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


We don't need to know the answers yet to make the judgment that what happened at Maricopa County polling places on Tuesday was a massive failure in planning and execution.

No fact tells you that more clearly than this one: At midnight, some Arizonans were still standing in moonlight trying to cast a vote in Phoenix.

That is an outrage.


Our View: We are outraged at long lines for Arizona primary - AzCentral
posted by kyp at 3:18 AM on March 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


"I literally went to multiple polling places, a total of FIVE separate times, only to find that the 1 hour wait (which I didn't have time for this morning) only increased as the day went on

Wait, they can vote at different sites? That kind of blows my mind. How does that even work?
posted by octothorpe at 4:09 AM on March 23, 2016




So, results from yesterday from nytimes:

Trump wins Arizona (with 47% of vote)
Cruz wins Utah (with 69% of vote)
Delegate count for the day: Trump 58, Cruz 40

Hillary wins Arizona (58%/40%)
Bernie wins Idaho (78%/21%) and Utah (80%/20%)
Delegate count for the day: Hillary 51 Bernie 57
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:02 AM on March 23, 2016 [12 favorites]


Jeb Bush endorses Ted Cruz, who he says will help ‘overcome the divisiveness and vulgarity’ of Donald Trump

Cruz: "But I'm not the "Establishment Candidate", I swear! I'm a maverick! I'm not a creature of Washington! Really!"
posted by theorique at 5:08 AM on March 23, 2016




Jeb Bush endorses Ted Cruz, who he says will help ‘overcome the divisiveness and vulgarity’ of Donald Trump

Cruz: "But I'm not the "Establishment Candidate", I swear! I'm a maverick! I'm not a creature of Washington! Really!"


Maybe a Jeb! endorsement is just a subtle knife in the back from the GOP.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:13 AM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Elvia Díaz: Maricopa County election officials writing off voters? You bet
For weeks, some Democrats have been sounding the alarm about not enough polling places in Maricopa County for Tuesday's presidential primary.

They warned that reducing the number of polling places from 200 during the 2012 primary election to 60 would mean long lines and discourage people from voting.

They said the fact that some predominantly Latino areas got one or none polling places essentially translates into voter suppression.

Before, it was easy to dismiss their claims as pure conspiracy theories. It was difficult to fathom that Maricopa County election officials would purposely design a plan to keep people, especially minorities, away from the polls.

Well, think what you may. But the fact is that voting on Tuesday turned into long waits and traffic nightmares near some polling places, proving their case.
[...]
Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell, in charge of overseeing the election, told reporters she was sorry people were upset but didn’t offer solutions.
Of course, it wasn't "conspiracy theories," this has been a long time coming, especially after the VRA was gutted, giving local election officials broad powers that almost always end up being discriminatory in practice.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:05 AM on March 23, 2016 [17 favorites]


Laugh break: Trump Meets the Honeymooners
posted by valetta at 6:21 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]




Well, if last night demonstrated anything the Sanders campaign is right to depend on White people to vote for him. The one state that Clinton won was the one with an appreciable population of minority voters--and that's WITH the disproportionate voting both "issues" in Latino neighborhoods documented above.

I've seen a lot of noise from Sanders folks claiming the Clinton campaign was behind the voter suppression, while ignoring the fact the voters affected were the ones more likely to vote for her.
posted by Anonymous at 6:44 AM on March 23, 2016


I've seen a lot of noise from Sanders folks claiming the Clinton campaign was behind the voter suppression, while ignoring the fact the voters affected were the ones more likely to vote for her.

Unfortunately, nobody will ever know who those people intended to vote for.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:46 AM on March 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


of course utah went for sanders. if the general comes down to trump and clinton, i'm not sure what they will do. i can't imagine the mormon majority voting for any woman as president, but especially hillary and i don't think they'll hold their noses for trump.
posted by nadawi at 6:53 AM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maybe a Jeb! endorsement is just a subtle knife in the back from the GOP.

Hope it comes with a free Guaca-Bowle. I suspect Jeb's campaign organization needs to sell / give away a few of those...
posted by theorique at 7:01 AM on March 23, 2016


So, I've been pretty vocal about my support for Clinton, and I absolutely, no holds barred condemn her statements about Nancy Reagan and AIDS. Full stop. Like a lot of people here, the AIDS epidemic touched my life and family personally and I remember very clearly the horror of the inaction of the Reagan administration at the time and the rank homophobia in general (also perpetuated by the Reagan administration). And I was pretty young at the time, young enough to not really understand or even notice politics, but I noticed this. Because it affected my loved ones so directly and it was just that bad.

And anyway, I got in an actual SHOUTING argument last night with someone who insisted that Reagan didn't ignore the AIDS crisis, that he wasn't homophobic and I was almost speechless, because obviously, his inaction on AIDS was one of the defining things of his presidency. But this person was so committed to his idea of Reagan as a good guy and an image he holds of the GOP being the party of civil rights which is literally decades old (and even then disputed) that it completely blinds this otherwise reasonable-seeming person from seeing things like the culpability of the Reagan administration in the horror of the AIDS crisis. And maybe I just exist in a liberal bubble but I didn't actually think this point was even really disputed by anyone at this point, including people on the right?

Anyway, I just want to say that it made me really grateful that I've generally seen across-the-board condemnation of Hillary's statement, both here and in general. And this is an area where I'm not concerned about whether the condemnation is motivated by sexism (though I'm sure some of it is), because whitewashing how the Reagan administration exacerbated the AIDS crisis is not acceptable and should never, ever be acceptable. And apparently there are still people out there who refuse to believe just how bad Reagan was on this issue and that is really upsetting to me. Pushing back on statements like that is absolutely the right thing to do.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:16 AM on March 23, 2016 [21 favorites]


Paul Ryan

Great, so now instead of being scared of a narcissistic fascist taking over my country, I get to be scared about the GOP's Great White Hope P90X-ing his way into the Oval Office to steal food stamps from the poor with his false compassion and dead-eyed grin.

Someone wake me up when it's November. Unless Paul Ryan wins, then you can let me sleep.
posted by sallybrown at 7:37 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Anyway, I just want to say that it made me really grateful that I've generally seen across-the-board condemnation of Hillary's statement, both here and in general.

I totally agree, which is why I was so frustrated with people here saying that she misspoke and she apologized, and now it's okay. Nothing about what she said or did was okay.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:38 AM on March 23, 2016 [6 favorites]


I got in an actual SHOUTING argument last night with someone who insisted that Reagan didn't ignore the AIDS crisis

My currently liberal, gay-rights-supporting, Reagan-disliking parents were also under this impression, though they wouldn't get into a shouting match to defend him. While they (well at least my dad for sure) strongly disliked Reagan while he was president, I am not sure whether their support for gay rights was equally as firm. I think that like many heterosexuals of their generation their feelings were probably more ambivalent, so their awareness of the crisis was less "Why the fuck is the government actively ignoring this" and more "this disease is sad and scary" without a lot of thought given as to the structural homophobia that allowed it to go as far as it did.

Sometimes living through history means your memories are a ground view look at the truth, and sometimes it means they're a perfect example of the biases that existed at the time.
posted by Anonymous at 7:39 AM on March 23, 2016


I don't think anyone said "it was okay."
posted by zutalors! at 7:44 AM on March 23, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't think anyone said "it was okay."

But the inherent tone in here was "she issued a longform apology several days later, and said she made a mistake/misspoke, so move on from this issue." But to me, the initial statement is something that would be a dealbreaker for my vote, no matter what happened after.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


you have every right to feel that way, and people have every right to feel differently. R317, I felt like people picked on your view after you said that, which isn't right either.
posted by zutalors! at 7:51 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


But to me, the initial statement is something that would be a dealbreaker for my vote, no matter what happened after.

you've been very clear the entire election season that you would never vote for clinton. that is fine and your prerogative but to act like your vote had a deal to break on the issue is pretty far fetched. critique her until the cows come home about her statement (i voted for bernie in the primary, i'll support clinton in the general and i'm still very angry about whatever the fuck she was doing there), but it seems hinky to connect that to who you will or won't vote for since that was decided long before she said what she said.
posted by nadawi at 8:05 AM on March 23, 2016 [27 favorites]


That's fair.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:09 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, if last night demonstrated anything the Sanders campaign is right to depend on White people to vote for him.

Yeah. The revolution is a white revolution which..yay I guess.
posted by zutalors! at 8:18 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]




Paul Ryan, Mr. "I Couldn't Possibly Be Speaker Unless You Guarantee I Get Weekends Off For My Family", is going to run for President? How do you like them apples. I suppose, in theory, it makes sense from his point of view- jump in very late in the game, live campaign life for 6 months instead of two years, then back to business and family as usual if it fails. He seems relatively sane compared to the rest of the field, which makes me worried that he could actually pull off a win.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:49 AM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well, if last night demonstrated anything the Sanders campaign is right to depend on White people to vote for him.

Can anyone tell me, or point me to an explanation, of why Clinton has more support from people of colour than Sanders? She's never struck me as being particularly progressive on systemic racism, and though I know Sanders has a lot of room for improvement in this area, he can at least point to a track record of fighting for civil rights in the past. There must be a reason for it, and I'd like to understand what it is.
posted by orange swan at 9:08 AM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]




(from previous comments, I believe, though I can't blame you from missing a post or two in this massive thread)
posted by Think_Long at 9:12 AM on March 23, 2016


Ryan could be positioning himself as the natural choice in 2020. That may rely on an understanding of picking GOP nominees that no longer holds true, though.
posted by nicepersonality at 9:14 AM on March 23, 2016


he can at least point to a track record of fighting for civil rights in the past

I find it kind of insulting that all PoC must get in line for Sanders because of his civil rights participation in the 60s.
posted by zutalors! at 9:19 AM on March 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


I find it kind of insulting that all PoC must get in line for Sanders because of his civil rights participation in the 60s.

It's also crazy though, how much damage was done by John Lewis' "I didn't see him" comment.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:23 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


I find it kind of insulting that all PoC must get in line for Sanders because of his civil rights participation in the 60s.

That was not my argument. I said I knew Sanders has a lot of room for improvement in this area. But I didn't see how Clinton was any better on systemic racism than Sanders, and she doesn't even have his (admittedly long past) civil right activism to point to. Frankly, when it comes to issues of systemic racism, I find both of them very disappointing, but I wanted to understand why people were concluding one was better than the other on this front.
posted by orange swan at 9:29 AM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm a PoC put off by Sanders' shabby grabs at minority votes, but I guess you want others' opinions?
posted by zutalors! at 9:43 AM on March 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


So, here's a stupid question: people seem to be able to predict which states will go to Sanders and which to Clinton based on the percentage of white voters in the respective states. If this is so reliable can we already tell what the final outcome of the primaries will be? I just want to know if I can stop biting my nails in anticipation.
posted by Dragonness at 9:46 AM on March 23, 2016


No zutalors!, I'm very interested in your opinion on this issue.
posted by orange swan at 9:47 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm a PoC who disagrees with the framing that Sanders has made "shabby" grabs at minority votes (but I'm open to listening).
posted by kyp at 9:49 AM on March 23, 2016 [6 favorites]


Well, it's not purely about demographics: but yes, there's a pretty good sense of how things will go based on polling, demographic modeling and so on. Here's the delegate calculator from the NYT. If things go about as they have, Sec. Clinton will win a majority of pledged delegates after the California primary in June.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:53 AM on March 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


So, here's a stupid question: people seem to be able to predict which states will go to Sanders and which to Clinton based on the percentage of white voters in the respective states. If this is so reliable can we already tell what the final outcome of the primaries will be? I just want to know if I can stop biting my nails in anticipation.

Fivethirtyeight has also done this, predicting number of delegates each candidate should earn based on the underlying demographics of each state (specifically, racial composition, liberal/conservative, rural/urban). The number of delegates each candidate has targeted is their estimate of how many delegates the candidate would get in the state if the two were tied.
posted by one_bean at 9:57 AM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


kyp I answered your questions about my issues with the Sanders campaign earlier on...they are not just about "minority issues" but who votes strictly along those lines?

That's why I said I find it insulting to be like "why are these PoC voting for Hillary? Sanders did civil rights stuff! Someone explain!"

We had this exact conversation last week, where people were like But Why? And I said, well here's what I think, and then people said a bunch of demographic numbers and Killer Mike.
posted by zutalors! at 10:04 AM on March 23, 2016 [6 favorites]


Can anyone tell me, or point me to an explanation, of why Clinton has more support from people of colour than Sanders?

If you're looking for something policy-based, you're not likely to find it. Lots of presidential-election mass politics isn't policy-oriented because policy or issue voting requires lots of time and effort and most people just don't care that much. Instead of asking "what policies have you advocated for or achieved, and what are your positions on the zillion different issues facing the US?" lots of voters seem to ask "Do I trust you to make decisions for me? Do you seem to get where I'm coming from and give a shit about me?"

Clinton has spent years and years and years and years and years and years and years talking to black people and being at black-people things and being seen with black people and having black people talk about her. In between 1970-whatever and last winter, Sanders hasn't.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:06 AM on March 23, 2016 [23 favorites]


Wait, they can vote at different sites? That kind of blows my mind. How does that even work?

The non-tech answer is that you can do this in a lot of places via provisional ballots. The legislature in VA seems determined to fuck about with the law every time they meet so I can't say what it's like now, but if I recall correctly from the last time I worked the polls in 2012, there were some circumstances where you could do a provisional ballot if you were at the wrong precinct and couldn't get to the proper one. It would be fairly minor to expand that sort of system.

From a technical standpoint - it's not really all that challenging anymore to do this sort of thing. Here in Northern Virginia - in Arlington, at least - the pollbooks are electronic and networked. So when you walk into the precinct there's 2 (at small turnout expected elections like these primaries) to 5 (the most I ever saw in operation at once, in 2008) of these tablet-like devices which are used to check people in. They're all hard-wire networked to each other but they don't actually have to be; they could be wireless.

Anyway, when you come in to a precinct as it happens now, the poll worker takes your information and looks you up in the book. By default they search the current precinct, but if you're not found they'll press a button and look through the entire county. Which is a nice way to deal with people who come to the wrong place; we can instantly see where they're supposed to be and send them there.

If you're in the right precinct the poll worker presses a button to issue you a ballot. I never worked a primary where both parties were holding a primary at the same time so I'm not sure if there's support for a particular party or not but there's no reason there couldn't be. Once that's done your entry is marked as issued and if you were to come back later in the day to try to vote the worker would say nope, already done. It's instantaneous.

Currently the system depends on the books talking to each other over local networking and only marking in-precinct ballots issued, but you could expand that out. Currently the books do the marking as an atomic operation - only one book can issue a ballot at a time - and they reconcile as they go, constantly. When one is disconnected from the other books (they assume there's always 2) it puts up a big-ass warning.

To remove the need for precinct specialization you'd just need a single authority, say back at election board HQ. A book issuing a ballot makes a request and gets a yea or nay and the HQ machine has a single queue of requests so you can't have a collision. It's not really a big deal if the ballot issuing takes a second or two since the choke point for the election is always the voter filling out and issuing their ballot.

Doing any-precinct voting would be tough in Virginia now since we're legally restricted to paper-only (OCR) ballots, so you would need the exact one for what someone is voting on. It would be trivial with electronic voting machines; you'd just need some sort of selection, but we used to do that with the eVote machines - sometimes there'd be more than one possible ballot and when the poll worker checked you in to the machine s/he would press the button to pick the one for you based on restrictions/opt-in.

Print you could do it very easy with just-in-time printing. There's not really any more risk there; poll workers already deal with different ballots and picking/issuing the right one.
posted by phearlez at 10:08 AM on March 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


BLM batting hard for Hilary right out of the gate has got to have hurt him hard with the younger demographic that might have drifted more towards him as well.
posted by Artw at 10:11 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm also Asian American, whereas "PoC" only seems to mean "black people" to a lot of white people.
posted by zutalors! at 10:17 AM on March 23, 2016 [9 favorites]


kyp I answered your questions about my issues with the Sanders campaign earlier on...they are not just about "minority issues" but who votes strictly along those lines?

No, I understand the issues you've raised, but I disagree with the assertion that they are "shabby", or (to move the goalpost) any more "shabby" than anything the other candidate has done.

And (on reviewing what you said before), I also wholeheartedly believe that we cannot have a real conversation about race in America without talking about how years of racist, terrible policies have disproportionately disenfranchised and impoverished minorities, especially Black people, so the fact that he talks about it often is not bad in my mind.
posted by kyp at 10:18 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


What about approaching the PoC/Clinton question from another direction and asking why do white guys support Sanders more? While, yes we see that Sanders definitely has PoC support and has the support of youth voters, it's also true that white people (particularly white men) support him more than Clinton.
posted by FJT at 10:23 AM on March 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


well, I guess to move the goal post again then, lots of negative things are said about the other candidates as well, so calling Sanders' minority outreach "shabby" is pretty mild in my opinion so I'll just stand by that word choice. His supporters have said that the campaign didn't have time to get to minority stuff and should read more, and everyone is openly saying they can't wait to win those white states. To some degree I don't know how much it is the supporters and how much it is the candidate, but it doesn't really matter at this point.

I don't know where I said that we shouldn't talk about racist policies though, so it's weird of you to have moved the ball forward that way.
posted by zutalors! at 10:23 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


No, I understand the issues you've raised, but I disagree with the assertion that they are "shabby", or (to move the goalpost) any more "shabby" than anything the other candidate has done.

I think the point is that Hillary has been talking about these issues for a long time to the communities that care about them. Her support among POC isn't a historical accident.
posted by Think_Long at 10:25 AM on March 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sorry, no intention to quote you out of context zutalors! or to reframe what you said, which is why I should probably quote every single time. I was responding to what you said:

I don't like that he talks about poverty whenever he talks about black people. He doesn't seem to be separating them in his mind.

What I meant to contrast is that I am ecstatic that he talks about poverty and criminal justice reform when he talks about Black people.
posted by kyp at 10:29 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]




What about approaching the PoC/Clinton question from another direction and asking why do white guys support Sanders more?


That's a great idea.
posted by zutalors! at 10:29 AM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm also Asian American, whereas "PoC" only seems to mean "black people" to a lot of white people.

This is also important and has been largely glossed over by the mainstream (white) media. My sense is that African-Americans have been strongly pro-Clinton (somewhat less so among younger black voters); Latinos have been fairly evenly split (and again, there are probably some distinctions to be drawn among different Hispanic groups, but exit polling lumps a lot of diverse groups together under that one heading). Native Americans have also been (surprisingly, to me) relatively strongly pro-Sanders. If the Dearborn, MI results are any indication, Arab-Americans are quite strongly in the Sanders camp. I haven't seen much data re: Asian-Americans, and any data on that group would probably be even more unhelpful than the Latino data since the label covers such a diverse range of groups.

tl;dr all people of color are not the same
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:29 AM on March 23, 2016 [10 favorites]


BLM batting hard for Hilary right out of the gate has got to have hurt him hard with the younger demographic that might have drifted more towards him as well.

BLM was "batting hard" for the movement for black lives. Not for Hillary. Not for Bernie. Not for any particular candidate. But to try and advance their goal of getting this country to realize that black lives matter as much as anybody else's and get to a place where those lives are treated accordingly by the systems in place here.

Choosing to demonstrate first at Bernie's rallies is related to his holding large gatherings (remember, Hillary was doing the smaller scale "listening tour" at first until Bernie shook up the campaign) and, imo, because the local BLM leaders in these locations thought they had a better chance of reaching the audience turning out for Bernie.

But to say a movement founded because of the murders of black people at the hands of police and others (Zimmerman) who get away with these crimes was making choices to try and advance Hillary's candidacy is just...no.
posted by sallybrown at 10:31 AM on March 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm not surprised Bernie is doing well with Native Americans. Unlike most politicians I can recall, he actually seems to care that they are one of the most underserved, mistreated, screwed-over populations in this country. His Native American outreach has been excellent. One of the things I like most about him.
posted by sallybrown at 10:36 AM on March 23, 2016 [9 favorites]


I think the point is that Hillary has been talking about these issues for a long time to the communities that care about them. Her support among POC isn't a historical accident.

And I also agree that Hillary has a good record on this.

But Senator Sanders has always talked about these issues, albeit on a smaller stage with limited (C-Span) exposure, and has fought hard for the well-being of PoC. See his speeches from 10, 20 years ago regarding criminal justice and welfare, or his work in 2008 to bring justice to communities of colour in Immokalee, Florida.
posted by kyp at 10:37 AM on March 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


A data point from around here: At least in MPLS, everyone I've noticed from BLM speaking about the candidates has been pretty anti-Hillary and seriously but somewhat less critical of Bernie. I have not thought of BLM as at all a pro-Hillary project, at least based on going to some events and following stuff on FB and the Twitters.
posted by Frowner at 10:37 AM on March 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


There is this interesting post from the Sanders subreddit where someone asked why he didn't have an Asian section on his site (from September) and the mods seem to be like "um, what are your issues?" "he hasn't gotten there yet, give it time" and "Bernie wants to unite us not creative divisions!". Hillary has had an Asian outreach chair for years.

So whatever, TLDR, Clinton has been working on this for years and years as said above. Whether it's not fair because Bernie didn't know he'd be running or whatever isn't necessarily important - sometimes people don't feel like they want to wait their turn for their issues to be heard. People of color have the benefit of a lifetime of being told that.
posted by zutalors! at 10:38 AM on March 23, 2016 [9 favorites]


In January, Hillary Clinton visited San Gabriel Valley to formally launch her campaign's AAPI outreach effort.
posted by FJT at 10:49 AM on March 23, 2016


Can anyone tell me, or point me to an explanation, of why Clinton has more support from people of colour than Sanders?

Well, with respect to Black voters in particular (though some of these apply to other POC as well):

Why Black Voters Don't Feel The Bern
Stop Bernie-Splaining to Black Voters (the entire Baldwin essay quoted here is also worth a read for older historical context)
Maybe Black People Aren't Feeling Bernie Sanders Because We're Tired of People Saying We Should Be

Two Reddit comments that offer more perspective.

Propane Jane addresses the view of POC voters who are put off by the tendency of socialists to conflate race and class, and being put off by his campaign's exploitation of his Civil Rights participation and explicit strategy to court White states.

A summary of all the points made above:
  • The Clintons have a long history of engaging with the Black community on a personal and political level
  • The assumption that Bernie marching 50 years ago makes up for not working with the Black community since is condescending and disrespectful given the number of people involved in the movement and the number of people who endured significantly worse.
  • Sanders supporters have been condescending in general ("If they only read more they'd support him").
  • There are fundamental differences between Black and White progressives, such as the influence of religion and the popularity of socialism, that result in Clinton appealing more to them than Bernie
  • Black voters tend towards pragmatism and see political change as a series of hard-fought battles and incremental changes. They are predisposed to candidates who advocate realism and look strong in the general.
  • Black voters are highly skeptical of politicians who have no relationship with the community sweeping in and promising revolution
  • Black people see themselves as starting from the worst population, with history only trending towards improvement. White voters are more affected by a feeling that things are going downhill.
I think anybody who talks about Sanders marching and getting arrested once as a big deal needs to brush up on their history. When John Lewis says he didn't see Bernie, it is coming from the perspective of a man who worked with thousands and thousands of activists--Black, White, from middle-school aged to great-grandparents--who experienced monumentally worse than Sanders did over march after march. He was with people who were firebombed, beaten, and sent to Parchman Farm. When Bernie's supporters treat his arrest like he's a martyr, or worse, that POC owe him, it is an insult to the blood and lives sacrificed by the many activists operating in far worse conditions than he did.

Regarding other POC groups, I believe the verdict is out on the Latin@ vote, as Sanders and Clinton have split it in some states and Clinton has been preferred in others. I think the exit polls in AZ are supposed to serve as a bellwether of California. The polls I've read indicate Asian voters tend towards Clinton or are split, and I've read Sanders voters say Native Americans should vote for Sanders but no exit polls that indicate where they fell. Most of the analyses I've read about POC voters and Clinton vs. Bernie have focused on Black voters, because the arguments started up around the time it was clear she was going to dominate the South. There was an article that came out a little bit ago about Bernie meeting with a number of Asian-American leaders and some snarky responses from Asian-identified activists along the lines of "oh, glad he finally got around to noticing us."
posted by Anonymous at 11:03 AM on March 23, 2016


What about approaching the PoC/Clinton question from another direction and asking why do white guys support Sanders more?

I doubt that Clinton campaigners would want to delve too deeply into that question. It has been asked and answered many, many times, and it mainly has to do with economic marginalization, which is a subject that Clinton's Wall Street ties leave her ill-equipped to address.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:03 AM on March 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


So much of the discussion here and elsewhere of the merits / failures of Bernie's outreach to PoC neglects to consider that Bernie isn't competing against a replacement-level politician -- he's competing against Hillary Clinton.

Certainly there have been strategic and tactical blunders, but even in an alternate universe where he better emphasized racial discrimination, police brutality, and other issues that resonate with the POC from the very beginning, I see it making only a marginal difference, certainly not enough to change the electoral equation meaningfully. Hillary Clinton has developed an enormous reservoir of political capital over her decades of public service, and she's been in the national spotlight for decades before anyone knew who Bernie was. Sanders has managed to push through some of those disadvantages using small donations and a policy platform that has resonated with a lot of people, but the idea that in less than a year of campaigning he could have overcome those disadvantages while also neutralizing Clinton's advantage with PoC forged over so many years... well, it could have happened, and I can't prove that it wouldn't have, but it seems like an extraordinary claim that puts the burden of proof on thee person making it.

In post-game interviews, you'll often hear athletes talk about how the other side played a great game, and maybe there's a bit of that that's self-serving as they try to explain away their failures, but there really is an opponent out there, and they have as much of a say in the outcome as you do, all else being equal. And we know all else isn't equal here -- Hillary was the enormous favorite from the start. She's had some cringeworthy own goals in this campaign, but I can't think of any major failures in how she's discussed issues important to minority voters, and even if she did, that reservoir of good will and voter mindshare gives her an advantage.

The narrative that this is all about Bernie's lack of appeal to any particular demographic, or his strategic missteps neglects to consider the enormous influence and political acumen of his opponent, and I think that's unfortunate.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:05 AM on March 23, 2016 [18 favorites]






What about approaching the PoC/Clinton question from another direction and asking why do white guys support Sanders more?

I doubt that Clinton campaigners would want to delve too deeply into that question. It has been asked and answered many, many times, and it mainly has to do with economic marginalization, which is a subject that Clinton's Wall Street ties leave her ill-equipped to address.


I think you were missing the point here.
posted by zutalors! at 11:16 AM on March 23, 2016 [6 favorites]


But Senator Sanders has always talked about these issues, albeit on a smaller stage with limited (C-Span) exposure

Sure, but the smaller stage and exposure have been his choice. There was nothing stopping him from talking about these things to a crowd of mostly-black people in Atlanta instead of to other senators in 2002 or 2009 or 2014 except his own preference not to and, realistically, lack of resources to put on such an event (but lacking those resources was also his choice).

To be clear, I'm not saying anything there except that he didn't start campaigning for the presidency until last fall, and that unsurprisingly this hurts him relative to someone who has been formally or informally campaigning for it since 2000. Or, if he knew in 2012 or 2013 that he was going to run, that he didn't run a very good informal campaign.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:17 AM on March 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


Issues of appeal to various demographic sets aside.

I think it is surprising that a relatively unknown 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont that labelled himself a socialist from the start has even been competitive at all with Hillary Clinton a centrist Democrat WASP that everyone knows .

Not only that - he has raised nearly 100 million dollars to fund the campaign from scratch -from predominantly small donors.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:35 AM on March 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think the point is that Hillary has been talking about these issues for a long time to the communities that care about them. Her support among POC isn't a historical accident.

That's more image and perception, I think, than actual advocacy. I have trouble believing someone who sat on the Board of Directors of Walmart really understands my financial issues, and/or the need for the minimum wage to be a living wage.
posted by mikelieman at 11:35 AM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


The narrative that this is all about Bernie's lack of appeal to any particular demographic, or his strategic missteps neglects to consider the enormous influence and political acumen of his opponent, and I think that's unfortunate.

If anything, I think the frustration and anger on the Left and among Democratic-leaning voters across the spectrum is masked by Sen. Sanders' relatively late foray into presidential politics plus his various negatives. It's been said to death, of course, but a candidate who shared Sen. Sanders' tone and leftwing stance and who also had existing connections to black communities, other communities of color*, etc. might have crushed Sec. Clinton early and that would be an upset rivaling (and much more clearly paralleling) Donald Trump's rise on the right.

It will be interesting to see how Democratic party leaders in Congress respond to this in the next legislative session, particularly if Dems retake the Senate. I think there'll be a lot of pressure on them from the left not to repeat some of the mistakes made when Democrats controlled the Senate before.

*ugh, I don't like this phrase
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:41 AM on March 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah, so again, when people ask why PoC aren't on board with Sanders, it could be in part because they are told they are wrong to support Clinton, who apparently does no "actual advocacy." They are told they are duped by image.
posted by zutalors! at 11:42 AM on March 23, 2016 [14 favorites]


Black people see themselves as starting from the worst population, with history only trending towards improvement. White voters are more affected by a feeling that things are going downhill.

This is a key point. A lot of the Sanders campaign is about "College debt is killing me" and "My health insurance premiums are too high" and "I'll never live as well as my parents." These are predominantly white middle-class themes, that white middle-class life is going downhill. This is in some ways similar to the Trump appeal. While the Sanders approach is more egalitarian and the Trump approach is more selfish and racist, they are both based largely on white middle-class discontent.
posted by JackFlash at 11:43 AM on March 23, 2016 [17 favorites]


I think it is surprising that a relatively unknown 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont that labelled himself a socialist from the start has even been competitive at all with Hillary Clinton a centrist Democrat WASP that everyone knows .

I think we learned in 2008 that huge numbers of Democratic voters will flock to an alternative to Clinton as soon as one presents itself, even if they haven't been in the spotlight for very long.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:56 AM on March 23, 2016


I agree with that, but I was more pro Clinton already this time because of her time at State. I still would have probably broken for a non Sanders Clinton alternative.
posted by zutalors! at 11:58 AM on March 23, 2016


I think a good amount of difference between 2008 and 2016 is that the expectation was that this year would be a rubber-stamping of Clinton as the nominee, which created all sorts of emotions and narratives: Sanders as the rebel, Clinton as the empire, etc. Everyone loves an underdog, Americans especially.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:58 AM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


You folks should turn on MSNBC. Hillary speaking on foreign policy. Very Presidential. Meanwhile Trump and Cruz in the gutter.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:00 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


You folks should turn on MSNBC. Hillary speaking on foreign policy. Very Presidential.

Seriously with this? There's no such thing as "very presidential". The president sets the tone. Let's not do fandom here.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:02 PM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


I fell asleep watching CNN last night and had a dream that I was hanging out with Ted Cruz backstage after one of his rallies. Off-camera, he was down to earth and personable and I remember feeling sympathy for his difficulties on the campaign trail. He was eating a yogurt and when he left he spilled the yogurt all over the place. I am not making this up.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:03 PM on March 23, 2016 [12 favorites]


There's no such thing as "very presidential".

You're right of course. There is however:

Hillary Clinton. Very president. Wow. Much foreign. [edit for clarity]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:04 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not a fan of her foreign policy dude, but there is something to being Presidential. It's about projecting strength and wisdom and urging tolerance and calm, she's doing it right now while people are scared and upset. It's important, it's leadership.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:05 PM on March 23, 2016 [16 favorites]


And I think that's a theme that's incorporated into the nature of their candidacies. Clinton is the establishment. Trump is an insurgent. Policies don't matter in the face of these broad characteristics. So come the general, how can HRC use that symbolism to her advantage? Subvert it? Maybe capitalize on how her place on the establishment has been an underdog's journey, and that Trump's insurgent appeal is manufactured? Demonstrate how his class traitor status is just a way for him to further his own interests. I don't know. The problem with underdog-vs-overlord, oppressed vs. oppressor narratives is that they're hard to shake, leads to cult like admiration for the seemingly oppressed. I suspect that's why there's a solid core of Trump supporters for whom Trump can do no wrong. Every critical fact is just the Man conspiring to keep you down. Same extends to Sanders. Makes sense that Hillary's a Yankees fan.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:05 PM on March 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


I had a dream that I was hanging with Obama once and he kept being about to tell me something Really Important That Only POTUS Knows but the Secret Service kept telling us to move.
posted by zutalors! at 12:05 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


To be fair, I have seen gas station tuna sandwiches that projected more strength and wisdom than Trump, Cruz, etc
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:06 PM on March 23, 2016 [9 favorites]


A lot of the Sanders campaign is about "College debt is killing me" and "My health insurance premiums are too high" and "I'll never live as well as my parents."

So, improving education, reforming health care and defending/expanding ladders of opportunity?

Show me a Democratic presidential candidate in the last 50 years that hasn't emphasized those themes. Yeah, they're to some extent middle class themes (I wouldn't say white, particularly: there are actually middle class people who aren't white and some of us even have college educations, student loan debt and health insurance premiums to pay).

The candidates simply aren't that far apart on racial issues and proposed remedies.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:07 PM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


The expectation that she was going to run in 2016 also led to a continued stream of attacks from Republicans (the still ongoing and highly partisan Benghazi hearings among them), which shouldn't be discounted.

I agree with the basic line of argument here (it's easier / sexier to run as the rebel outsider than the stodgy incrementalist) but, uh, I don't think ridiculous and unwarranted Republican attacks on a candidate are going to hurt them all that much in a Democratic primary?
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:11 PM on March 23, 2016


I don't think ridiculous and unwarranted Republican attacks on a candidate are going to hurt them all that much in a Democratic primary?

It could among independents
posted by zutalors! at 12:15 PM on March 23, 2016


I think we learned in 2008 that huge numbers of Democratic voters will flock to an alternative to Clinton as soon as one presents itself, even if they haven't been in the spotlight for very long.

Ok, I suppose . But the alternative in 2008 was Obama. Obama was/ is very charismatic, young and awesome!

Bernie Sanders is a gruff old white Jewish dude from Brooklyn that labels himself a socialist. You can't say that his competitiveness with Clinton isn't surprising. Well, I suppose you could but...

If you would have told me he was running a year and a half ago I would have said he would have had a snowballs chance in hell.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:16 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men

Inside: feelings about trustworthiness, free trade, Wall Street, she's not addressing the needs of White men and doesn't want them in the party.
posted by Anonymous at 12:16 PM on March 23, 2016


she's not addressing the needs of White men

Nobody ever stands up for white men, the most oppressed of all people!
posted by Justinian at 12:21 PM on March 23, 2016 [6 favorites]


Holy shit, reading that article it's worse than I thought. Those dudes are either racist, ignorant, or both.
posted by Justinian at 12:23 PM on March 23, 2016


Holy shit, reading that article its worse than I thought. Those dudes are either racist, ignorant, or both.

Flagged as ridiculous. FTA: "Many said they did not trust her to overhaul the economy because of her wealth and her ties to Wall Street. Some said her use of private email as secretary of state indicated she had something to hide. A few said they did not think a woman should be commander in chief. But most said they simply did not think Mrs. Clinton cared about people like them." None of that is racist or ignorant.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:25 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


(Except for the comment that is sexist.)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:26 PM on March 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


suspect that's why there's a solid core of Trump supporters for whom Trump can do no wrong. Every critical fact is just the Man conspiring to keep you down.

The advice of a podcast I listened to is to inject risk into Trump's perceived advantages. Have people, both business folks and regular people, come forward and just keep hammering him about the times he's cheated them. Expose that his "business empire" is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Portray him as the slick salesman that sweet talks to make a sale, but doesn't give a shit about anybody after he gets what he wants.

People say, "Trump isn't bought off, he answers to nobody." So, maybe run with that. Maybe the counter should be if he answers to nobody, why would he answer to you once you vote for him?"

Don't insult Trump or his supporters. The media has been doing that and will keep doing that, and it only strengthens the Trump supporters' resolve. But we want to constantly inject risk and doubt into his candidacy. We won't convince the core supporter, but we might get more passive supporters and maybe cause some infighting.
posted by FJT at 12:27 PM on March 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Surprise! Some white male and white female Democrats in the south are racist.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:27 PM on March 23, 2016


Obama and Bernie are ridiculously different. Obama not only had the invigorating charisma and youth, he also had a history with the Black community, religiosity, and the political values and pragmatism. He spoke of hope and change, but he wasn't exactly "TEAR IT ALL DOWN!" He offered a broader base of appeal.

Clinton is always going to be battling the fact that Republicans threw shit at her for so long that many voters now think she's not made of anything else. Sexism makes this issue even uglier.

I would be concerned about her electability if she was up against a Republican Party that had a strong candidate that inspired the majority of the base. Certainly that was one of the reasons I voted for Obama. But then I would be concerned about Bernie's as well, because the guy has a whole host of skeletons in his closet that haven't even been touched by the Clinton campaign and the Republicans would have absolutely no problem ripping out. At least Clinton is well-versed in dealing with shit being thrown at her. Sanders has yet to be the target of any serious shit-slinging.

Holy shit, reading that article it's worse than I thought. Those dudes are either racist, ignorant, or both.

I think that article is illustrative of how sexist and racist attitudes get mixed in with actual complaints to create an impenetrable wall of "She's not for me." There is a lot of dog-whistle in there.
posted by Anonymous at 12:29 PM on March 23, 2016


“She’s talking to minorities now, not really to white people, and that’s a mistake,” said Dennis Bertko, 66

This isn't racist in a "I hate x people" sense, but it's definitely a kind of "hey, let's not rock the boat on all that systemic racism I benefit from" sentiment.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:32 PM on March 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


So much of the discussion here and elsewhere of the merits / failures of Bernie's outreach to PoC neglects to consider that Bernie isn't competing against a replacement-level politician -- he's competing against Hillary Clinton.

I know these threads would get really boring after the first thousand comments if we didn't have something to fight about, but still it seems that what is almost wilfully ignored here is that for the most part people are voting for one candidate, not against the other. From what I've seen—and someone correct me if I'm wrong about this—both candidates actually enjoy very good net favorability among Democratic primary voters, which is in stark contrast to the Republican race this year, where it seems on average, the electorate loathes everyone.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:39 PM on March 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


She's had some cringeworthy own goals in this campaign...

fwiw, more than 'cringeworthy own goals' for me at least, some concerns i have from recent statements she's made: more hawkish foreign policy and further erosion of civil liberties?
posted by kliuless at 12:48 PM on March 23, 2016 [7 favorites]


both candidates actually enjoy very good net favorability among Democratic primary voters, which is in stark contrast to the Republican race this year

I think this is pretty accurate. If I had to give the candidates a letter grade where my ideal candidate was A+, Sen. Sanders would probably get a B+ and Sec. Clinton a B-. Whereas I see some of my family members on the Republican side and they are pretty universally having to figure out which candidate, if any, can even rate a passing grade in their books.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:51 PM on March 23, 2016 [9 favorites]


more than 'cringeworthy own goals' for me at least

By "own goals" I meant flubs where her rhetoric doesn't match what she believes, or at least what she's trying to convey to voters. <Rubio>She knew exactly what she was doing</Rubio> at AIPAC, so I don't consider it an own goal. The more off-the-cuff Nancy Reagan / AIDS remarks are more what I'm talking about. I can question her strategy, or her policy priors that would lead her to consider that strategy, but I think she did exactly what she wanted there.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:09 PM on March 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


None of that is racist or ignorant.

And yet the guys actually quoted in the article, to whom I was referring, didn't mention any of that stuff about Wallstreet.
“She’s talking to minorities now, not really to white people, and that’s a mistake,” said Dennis Bertko, 66, a construction project manager in Youngstown, Ohio, as he sipped a draft beer at the Golden Dawn Restaurant in a downtrodden part of town. “She could have a broader message. We would have listened.”

“Instead, she’s talking a lot about continuing Obama’s policies,” he said. “I just don’t necessarily agree with all of the liberal ideas of Obama.”

Mr. Bertko said that he rarely crossed party lines but that he voted for Donald J. Trump
..."
[...]
“Being an ex-serviceman, the situation with Benghazi still upsets me greatly,” said Hayden Gerdes, 72, referring to the terrorist attacks in Libya. A Clinton voter in 2008, he chose Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, on Tuesday.
[...]
“If I’m a woman, I probably vote for Hillary. If I’m Hispanic, I vote for Hillary. Blacks will vote for Hillary,” Mr. Lucarell said. “But white people, especially white men — she has a big problem there.”
Clearly these dudes have reasoned, rational, non-sexist, non-racist, non-ignorant reasons for deciding the answer here is to vote for Trump and Kasich!

The article is doing that thing where it slyly points out without actually editorializing that the people quoted are not actually reasonably upset about the things they purportedly are upset about.
posted by Justinian at 1:09 PM on March 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also: Benghazi! A reasoned critique of being too close to Wall Street.
posted by Justinian at 1:10 PM on March 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Surprise! Some white male and white female Democrats in the south are racist.

ah yes, the southern white support is really bringing clinton's wins down - meanwhile, all those non-southern white states that sanders is just scooping up are completely free of racist white people, i'm sure. racism, a southern problem, that's probably entirely correct.
posted by nadawi at 1:14 PM on March 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


Uh, I just realized that racist guy is quoted at the Golden Dawn restaurant. The Golden Dawn is a neoNazi political party in Greece. I assume that's a coincidence and actually it's a restaurant run by Satanists rather than neoNazis.
posted by Justinian at 1:17 PM on March 23, 2016


ah yes, the southern white support is really bringing clinton's wins down - meanwhile, all those non-southern white states that sanders is just scooping up are completely free of racist white people, i'm sure. racism, a southern problem, that's probably entirely correct.

That it is really no surprise that there are white racist Democrats in the South does not imply that there are no racist Democrats outside the South. My personal opinion is that all white people are racist in some way. Racism permeates everything. So, it is no surprise that racism is informing the decision-making of some people - whether it is conscious or not. To then infer though from this that white people are voting for Sanders are doing so because of racism does not seem accurate to me? Is that the inference you are making?

I think that racist white democrats are prob going to vote for Trump.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:27 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


To clarify - anyone who is overtly racist and not questioning/confronting their own racism and systemic racism, in general, is probably going to vote for Trump - not Sanders.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:34 PM on March 23, 2016


i don't understand why you started bashing the south to begin with, besides this being metafilter and that being a super fun pasttime, apparently.
posted by nadawi at 1:35 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


"overtly racist" is probably a reliable Trump demographic, yes, but "not questioning/confronting their own racism and systemic racism" -- well, that is just a yuuuuge tent there.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:36 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men

That's a good article, and I agree about that there is some dog whistle in there. But we still have to ask the question: Can we win some of these white men over, and if so, how?

Is it a matter of perhaps admitting that the trade deals have some unequal benefits and that they should be at the very least "rebalanced" (cause I think their views on immigration enforcement are a non-starter) and deploying Biden, Bill, and Bernie (if he's not the nom) in to deliver the message or is it deeper?

Because as much as it sucks to say, these white men probably have an unequal influence in their families and communities. They won't be voting for Hillary Clinton and they probably are going to be telling everyone around them to do the same. And they are positioned in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, etc.
posted by FJT at 1:36 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


i don't understand why you started bashing the south to begin with, besides this being metafilter and that being a super fun pasttime, apparently.

I wasn't bashing the South. I apologize if it came across that way. Most of the primaries have been in the south so far that was the basis for that comment. I have nothing but love and respect for people in the south. A significant portion of my family lives in the south.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:38 PM on March 23, 2016


"overtly racist" is probably a reliable Trump demographic, yes, but "not questioning/confronting their own racism and systemic racism" -- well, that is just a yuuuuge tent there.

Yes - it is a yuuuuge tent! haha! I speculate - this large segment of people will be appealed to a lot this election season.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:43 PM on March 23, 2016


Why do we need to create guilt by association, i.e., imply that supporting Sanders or Clinton is somehow bad based on how some supporters behave, when we live in a day and age where we have so much information at hand to judge who candidates are based on the merits of their words, actions, and their records?

There are plenty of ugly supporters on both sides. I'd rather focus on the substance of what the candidates have said and done, rather than how some supporters have chosen to justify their support for their candidate.
posted by kyp at 1:44 PM on March 23, 2016 [17 favorites]




Also: Benghazi!

I really hope the suffix -ghazi takes off for mocking non-scandals ginned up by right-wing cranks, e.g. the GamerGhazi subreddit.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:57 PM on March 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


Maybe we can win some white men with the coal plan.
posted by zutalors! at 2:07 PM on March 23, 2016


I'm a serious skeptic of Sec. Clinton's climate and energy agenda, mostly stemming from my activism with 350.org during her tenure at State. Not much happened to change my mind about this in the intervening years, and my general impression was that she fell into the common position of more or less all centrist politicians: they acknowledge the science, and and say that something needs to be done, but then lie about the scope of the problem and what it will take to confront it, because they are afraid that asking the public to sacrifice anything for something so intangible as their children's future is signing your own death warrant. It's basically a preemptive capitulation to the Koch engine of lies and destruction.

So it is really heartening to see that coal plan on her website. It doesn't try to insult the intelligence of the public by soft-pedalling the scope of the problem, but rather lays out an ambitious and detailed enough plan to actually make a substantive difference. Which makes it super frustrating to see the noise machine go berserk for some phrase taken out of context, and for her to backpedal as a result in that letter to Manchin. Still, the plan is still up on her site, and that's a good sign she isn't actually backing down on policy.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:49 PM on March 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


"overtly racist" is probably a reliable Trump demographic, yes, but "not questioning/confronting their own racism and systemic racism" -- well, that is just a yuuuuge tent there.

Also, it is extremely sad to me that this tent is, I speculate , is so large. It feels very frustrating to me, that such a large segment of Americans have unquestioned racial axioms guiding some of their decisions.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:57 PM on March 23, 2016


I'd rather focus on the substance of what the candidates have said and done, rather than how some supporters have chosen to justify their support for their candidate.

Hear, hear.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:22 PM on March 23, 2016


Why do we need to create guilt by association, i.e., imply that supporting Sanders or Clinton is somehow bad based on how some supporters behave, when we live in a day and age where we have so much information at hand to judge who candidates are based on the merits of their words, actions, and their records?

The behavior of supporters is relevant when you're talking about broad support, i.e. why someone is doing better with X demographic. That's something that comes up in politics, and you can draw useful conclusions from it.

It's just tricky when we reflect those demographic trends back at the individual supporter, because you can end up erasing individual differences and overlooking nuance. As a supporter of a candidate, it can be hard to separate out your own voice from people who are saying similar things, and I think some of us may take it for granted that everyone implicitly understands where we're coming from. If a whole bunch of people are being really critical in ways you acknowledge as sexist/ignorant/jerky, but you go "well, I'm being critical for different reasons," - I mean, that doesn't mean you are being sexist/ignorant/jerky, but you can't expect people to just immediately think "OK, if you say so, sorry for doubting you!" Those issues remain a broad issue, and like it or not that reflects back on you.

There's two things to take from that. One is that we all need critically self-assess and be honest with where we're coming from (not just with -isms, but with bias in general) so that we're not just digging in on ideas about ourselves and other people that we might come to regret later.

The other is try to separate out the individual statement from whatever the large groups of people are saying. There's been a lot of people talking past each other ( and I'm sure some people reading this will agree, disagree, think I'm being self-serving by writing this, or think that only one group of supporters is guilty of this - depending on your point of view). What really matters to me is that it seems like a lot of people have been missing the point with each other's comments (and I hate to have to use the "on both sides" thing, but I want to be clear that I'm not hiding a subtle dig at anyone here).

There's two conversations happening simultaneously, about individual reasons for supporting your candidate on the one hand, and about demographic trends on the other. That gets mixed up, and maybe sometimes what looks like guilt by association is valid criticism, and sometimes what looks like criticism of a demographic is just not giving credit to the individual. I don't know, for my part I'm just trying keep in mind who I'm talking to.
posted by teponaztli at 3:26 PM on March 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


> Just another reminder that the guy in 2nd place is just as bad as the guy in first: Ted Cruz Calls for Security Patrols in America's "Muslim Neighborhoods"

President Obama, Who Has Run Out of F*cks, Just Burned Ted Cruz (In response to Cruz's batshit proposal about Muslims.)
posted by homunculus at 3:32 PM on March 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sorry, I just want to take a moment and acknowledge the terrible phrasing of "those issues remain a broad issue."
posted by teponaztli at 3:36 PM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Obama:
As far as the notion of having surveillance of neighborhoods where Muslims are present, I just left a country that engages in that kind of neighborhood surveillance, which, by the way, the father of Sen. Cruz escaped for America, the land of the free
Ouch!
posted by mmoncur at 3:57 PM on March 23, 2016 [9 favorites]


teponaztli, I acknowledge that the temperament of a sample of supporters is useful in gaining insights into the base as a whole. I am not disputing that.

What I have an issue with is that the more extreme views tend to become the dominant narrative to paint all supporters with a broad brush, and that media can present tangentially related data (e.g., that white men as a whole support Bernie Sanders) alongside anecdotal interviews that further amplify that message, without any qualitative data. This is my specific problem with the nyt article.
posted by kyp at 3:57 PM on March 23, 2016


The more that I read about the voting clusterfuck that happened in Arizona the angrier I become. This is completely UNACCEPTABLE FOR ALL VOTERS. Denying people the right to vote is criminal. I am furious....again.

This election is bad for my health.
posted by futz at 3:58 PM on March 23, 2016 [12 favorites]


Yup. Sanders mentioned it himself, albeit obliquely. Pretty good night for Bernie, though.
posted by Trochanter at 4:01 PM on March 23, 2016


mmoncur: "Obama:
As far as the notion of having surveillance of neighborhoods where Muslims are present, I just left a country that engages in that kind of neighborhood surveillance, which, by the way, the father of Sen. Cruz escaped for America, the land of the free
Ouch!
"

I'm so going to miss that man.
posted by octothorpe at 4:25 PM on March 23, 2016 [3 favorites]




Jann Wenner's editorial, posted today: Rolling Stone endorses Clinton

News Flash: Once Revolutionary but now Establishment Gatekeeper Music Executive endorses Establishment Gatekeeper Politician.

Not really surprised by this. What would surprise me is if he endorsed MC5 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:51 PM on March 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


Weird Al first.
posted by Etrigan at 4:53 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell quotes:

An Arizona election official said the hourslong wait some voters endured to cast their ballot in the state’s presidential preference was partially their own fault but she apologized for the debacle.


...“Well, the voters (are to blame) for getting in line, maybe us for not having enough polling places, or as many as we usually have,” Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell said in an interview with Fox 10 on Tuesday night.

...“I’m sorry they had to wait that long but I’m glad they went out to vote,” she said.

...Purcell later said, “They’re not to blame for standing in line but they went to the polling places. … They could have voted early … that was their option. I think it’s wonderful voters went to the polls, that’s what we encourage them to do all the time."

(Voters were still in line in some places well after midnight. They were allowed to vote. Polls close at 7 p.m.)

...“We knew a third of our voters could not vote in this election so that takes away a whole group. And then we looked at where polling places could be in large locations so that we could have a lot of machines and poll workers there,” Purcell said.

...But independents did show up at the polls, Purcell said. “We have to allow them to vote.”

In those instances, they received provisional ballots, “which will not count, but we have to do the paperwork on that, anyway,” Purcell said.
posted by futz at 5:03 PM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wow. Maricopa County is a great example of why voting for boring local races fucking matters.
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:07 PM on March 23, 2016 [7 favorites]


Weird Al's anti-Trump tune:

"Kick out the Yams."
posted by CincyBlues at 5:08 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, and a lot of those Independent voters switched to Democrat in order to vote but when they went to the polls they were still listed as Independent and were refused.
posted by futz at 5:11 PM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Apparently, Sanders won the Maricopa County in-person vote 60-40 (Clinton won the early vote 63-37). Given that I've heard that more than two thirds of the people who showed up to vote either were turned away, were given provisional ballots (people who had changed to Democrat were showing up as Independent, and even some life-long Democrats were wrongly showing up as Independent), or left due to the long lines, I'm pretty sure Sanders was robbed a significant number of delegates last night.

(I might be wrong; regardless of who it ended up hurting, though, last night was a travesty for democracy.)
posted by Backslash at 5:20 PM on March 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


...But independents did show up at the polls, Purcell said. “We have to allow them to vote.”

In other words, expect this exact clusterfuck to happen again in November. Of course, that's the whole point, blame Democrats for voting and discourage them from voting, by any means necessary. It's the new Jim Crow, brought to you by Roberts et al.
posted by dirigibleman at 5:21 PM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well, that would also depend on any biases on who was turned away or discouraged from voting, specific locations in the county which were more affected, etc. It isn't really possibly to know what might have happened.

In addition to the specific blame on Helen Purcell and the Maricopa County Republicans who control the polling station staffing/etc, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act was a factor as well.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:24 PM on March 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Kim Davis, almost every Republican Senator, this Helen Purcell person...

Jesus. Do your job or resign! We're not paying you to sit around, we're paying you to run the goddamn government.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:24 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


They do have mail-in ballots there, which I found amazingly convenient when I was living there. God only knows if they actually get counted, though, or if the mail slot just goes straight into a dumpster.
posted by rifflesby at 5:25 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Gravitas, schmavitas: Ted Cruz literally lifted a line from The American President in his battle of the wives with Trump.
posted by peeedro at 5:30 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


In other words, expect this exact clusterfuck to happen again in November.

All across the country, probably. Over in the Augustus Countdown thread there's been a good conversation around the unwritten norms that are necessary for sane governance.

I guess another key norm that's broken down now is consensus that there should be enough physical locations for people to vote at. Good to know.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:34 PM on March 23, 2016


I guess another key norm that's broken down now is consensus that there should be enough physical locations for people to vote at. Good to know.

When are we going to have voting (once, securely) by encrypted web browser or app? I long for the day when a citizen can vote from anywhere with the safety and security of his own smartphone or computer. No more lines, no more paper.

Estonia has been a leader in this area.
posted by theorique at 6:00 PM on March 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Young Turks (TYT) just did an interview with Bernie Sanders, and some of the clips are now on YouTube.

It's pretty interesting so far; they ask some questions you probably won't hear on cable news. Disclosure, they're firmly in the pro-Sanders camp so there's definitely bias (although I don't think they played softball with him).
posted by kyp at 6:15 PM on March 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Interesting.

In an unusual twist to Arizona’s presidential primary election controversy, a Valley civil rights activist stood with Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell Wednesday afternoon and personally declared the issue moot.

“There is no present threat to voting rights and civil rights in Arizona’s elections,” said Jarrett Maupin, a civil rights activist in Phoenix. Maupin appeared to absolve Purcell and elections director Karen Osborne of any wrongdoing even though just an hour earlier he had called for them to resign.

“I am no longer joining those few voices that are calling for resignations and investigations into what happened to yesterday’s election,” said Maupin said.

...Just an hour earlier, Maupin issued a press release. In the release, Maupin stated: "We cannot afford for her (Purcell) or her director of elections to be in charge of administrating a general election with so much at stake. It is 2016 not 1956 or 1966, what happened during yesterday's election was highly immoral and highly illegal."

During the press conference, Maupin said he had researched the issue and was satisfied Purcell simply miscalculated the amount of polling places that would be needed.


I find it really odd that he totally reversed his very very strong stance in one hour. He is a strong advocate for democratic policies and endorsed Hillary. What happened in his meeting with Purcell? After everything that Purcell has said in the last 24 hours he is suddenly on her side? I mean, he went from vehement to "eh, only a few folks are upset, no biggie in an hour"?

I am flummoxed. And I believe that he is going to have some explaining to do.
posted by futz at 7:06 PM on March 23, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yeah wow. Sounds like the research he did in that hour was maybe less about voting procedure and more about the tensile strength of his kneecaps.
posted by rifflesby at 7:10 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Arizona experience -- like many before it -- make one thing clear. If you support a Democrat or other lefty candidate, vote early, absemtee or by mail wherever possible. it's the only way to really stop these voter suppression efforts.
posted by msalt at 7:18 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


When are we going to have voting (once, securely) by encrypted web browser or app?

Bad idea, even if the many technical and logistical challenges could be overcome, because the secret ballot is an important requirement that everyone seems to forget about. Vote-by-mail sounds nice, and we already do it with absentees, but we can't abandon the secret ballot just because it's hard or because of some abuses at some polling locations.

But yeah, those technical challenges. I'll buy you a beer if secure e-voting ever happens in my lifetime.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:05 PM on March 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


A few links related to electoral integrity in the US:

From Freedom House.org:
2008 Special Report - Today's American: How Free?
Freedom in the World 2016: United States

For Californians in particular:
Election Integrity Project

Also the Electoral Integrity Project's report on elections around the world:
The Year in Elections, 2015
posted by valetta at 8:11 PM on March 23, 2016


I'd probably buy you a barrel of wine.
posted by kyp at 8:11 PM on March 23, 2016


After all the GOP has done to disenfranchise voters across the United States, I hope their hands finally get caught in Arizona's till.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:06 PM on March 23, 2016


We have vote by mail AND secret ballot in Oregon. it's no different than regular voting -- just don't have one person look at the ID and the actual ballot. (There's a separate security envelope you put inside the one with your name on it.)
posted by msalt at 11:53 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Vote for Democrats in state elections if you want voting to be easier because Republicans have been doing their best in every state that they control to make it as hard as possible.
posted by octothorpe at 4:33 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Vote by mail is deeply different from regular voting, sorry. With regular in-person voting the government knows with certainty that your vote was cast in secret. With vote-by-mail the government has no idea who was present when you filled out your ballot.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:36 AM on March 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah, secret ballot means secret from everyone, not just government officials.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:23 AM on March 24, 2016 [5 favorites]




Bad idea, even if the many technical and logistical challenges could be overcome, because the secret ballot is an important requirement that everyone seems to forget about. Vote-by-mail sounds nice, and we already do it with absentees, but we can't abandon the secret ballot just because it's hard or because of some abuses at some polling locations.

I'm far from an expert on this but it's my understanding that cryptographic protocols could verify that a cast electronic ballot is (1) unique and (2) valid and (3) non-traceable to an individual ID. The physical secrecy comes from the voter sitting in a private place, on their smartphone or laptop, as they choose.

So the system would know from your vote submission that a valid voter voted, that they voted once and only once, and could not uniquely identify that voter's identity from the information transmitted.
posted by theorique at 8:51 AM on March 24, 2016


Password: 1234
posted by Trochanter at 8:54 AM on March 24, 2016


I'm far from an expert on this but it's my understanding that cryptographic protocols could verify that a cast electronic ballot is (1) unique and (2) valid and (3) non-traceable to an individual ID. The physical secrecy comes from the voter sitting in a private place, on their smartphone or laptop, as they choose.

If having a drivers license is a real impediment to voting, just wait until you need to support cryptographic vote signing.
posted by dis_integration at 8:57 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


So the system would know from your vote submission that a valid voter voted, that they voted once and only once, and could not uniquely identify that voter's identity from the information transmitted.

But the system would not know if you were sitting next to a Koch minion, who is waiting for you to hit "submit" as he watches, prior to handing you a bottle of free whisky.
posted by Meatbomb at 9:00 AM on March 24, 2016 [7 favorites]


Password: 1234

Well, at least that gets you into the restrooms at Roy St. Coffee...
posted by y2karl at 9:11 AM on March 24, 2016


The physical secrecy comes from the voter sitting in a private place, on their smartphone or laptop, as they choose.

The issue isn't technical per se (well it may be that, too: I'm not an expert there) -- it's human. With a physical polling place, voters go into a partitioned booth, fill out their ballots and return them to the polling officer without anyone else being able to see the ballot.

As Meatbomb notes above, a fully-electronic system opens the door to vote-buying (although this could happen with mail-in ballots as well), and to undue influence on a vote.

Plus, you have to remember that significant numbers of people do not have reliable internet access or basic computer literacy skills. Having a stealth requirement to be able to use and have access to a computer is unfair and I expect Certain Politicians would love to be able to use this strategy in their ongoing voter suppression efforts. ("Oh, there were only 3 polling places open in our city of one million people on Election Day? Well why didn't people just take advantage of the voting app which was clearly advertised in a drop-down link on a subpage of the city's 1990s-era website?")

I'd rather that federal elections be taken out of the hands of the states altogether and/or have automatic registration and/or require mandatory voting with a half-day or full-day federally-mandated holiday.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:16 AM on March 24, 2016 [6 favorites]


If having a drivers license is a real impediment to voting, just wait until you need to support cryptographic vote signing.

"No, grandma, you just run ssh-keygen in the terminal. No, not in 'your google' ... just open up a terminal and type ssh-keygen. Now choose a passphrase with at least 1024 bytes of entropy. No, your passphrase can't be 'password1'."
posted by theorique at 9:18 AM on March 24, 2016 [7 favorites]


The physical secrecy comes from the voter sitting in a private place, on their smartphone or laptop, as they choose.

You seem to either be oblivious to or intentionally not considering the fact that coercion exists. Once the act of voting is taken out of a public polling place with election officials overseeing it, the secret ballot is no longer secret. All the crypto fu in the world can't change that.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:22 AM on March 24, 2016 [12 favorites]


grandmas have been running laps around their grandkids when it comes to actually making sure to vote for a very long time, they'd figure it out
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:33 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


Once the act of voting is taken out of a public polling place with election officials overseeing it, the secret ballot is no longer secret.

I didn't realize that it was meant to be "secret" as part of the whole process rather than "secret, if the voter wishes it". That makes more sense.
posted by theorique at 9:34 AM on March 24, 2016


Password: 1234

Wait, did I just vote or open the air shield around Druidia?
posted by Etrigan at 9:38 AM on March 24, 2016


Huh, I'd thought that the secret ballot wasn't implemented in modern times until the late 1800s in Australia, but Wikipedia says the French revolutionaries implemented it as well.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:49 AM on March 24, 2016


Once the act of voting is taken out of a public polling place with election officials overseeing it, the secret ballot is no longer secret.

So no more absentee ballots?
posted by one_bean at 9:59 AM on March 24, 2016


Paul Waldman: How Republicans are gaming the voting system to tip the 2016 election in their favor
There’s a simple difference of philosophy and goals at work, which is that Democrats want to make it as easy as possible to vote, and Republicans want to make it as difficult as possible. You can argue that both are simply acting out of their partisan interest, since Republicans know that their voters are more likely to overcome the hurdles (and those hurdles are apportioned selectively, of course), while Democratic voters are more likely to be stymied by them. But even if that’s true, it doesn’t change the fact that Republicans are trying to place obstacles in the way of American citizens’ voting rights.

So how will this affect the 2016 election? Many of the states with these restrictions are Republican strongholds anyway, so it won’t make much of a difference. But many are swing states, like Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida — and Arizona, which hasn’t been a swing state but is moving in that direction as its Latino population increases. In close races, both for president and for other offices, the fact that thousands of people who would have voted mostly Democratic find it inconvenient, difficult, or virtually impossible to cast a ballot could alter the outcome in Republicans’ favor.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:03 AM on March 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'd say that absentee ballots probably do more good than harm. And to the extent that electronic options further the goal of convenient, secure and fair voting, I'm for it. I just suspect that having those options would be used as a smokescreen to create a two-tier voting system that works pretty great for middle-class, younger and technologically literate folks and not as well for others. That's what technocratic solutions tend to do without strong protections to the contrary, if our current education and health systems are any indication.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:06 AM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]




Bernie picks up superdelegate after Idaho blowout

Downright mean of Politico to still have O'Malley on the tracker.
posted by Etrigan at 10:11 AM on March 24, 2016


So it looks like Sen. Sanders now needs 67% of remaining delegates to get to 50%, if my arithmetic is correct. (It looks like the Politico tracker is including superdelegates? so maybe it's closer to low-60s in pledged delegates.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:15 AM on March 24, 2016


so maybe it's closer to low-60s in pledged delegates

The numbers before were ~58% of all the rest of the pledged delegates. Probably not going to happen, although I'm expecting a big win in Washington state. But he'll probably lose CA, PA and NY, and that will be it. If he loses either CA or NY at all, he has no path to the nomination.
posted by dis_integration at 10:22 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie picks up superdelegate after Idaho blowout

...for a total of 27?

Does that mean Idaho's other 3 superdelegates are undecided? Or are they pledged to Clinton?
posted by zarq at 10:23 AM on March 24, 2016


So no more absentee ballots?

The existence of some voters that are beyond the reach of our electoral infrastructure doesn't negate the need to protect the secrecy of the vast majority of ballots that are cast on election day in polling places.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:23 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


So no more absentee ballots?

From my cold dead hands.
posted by homunculus at 10:57 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


In a more ideal system, absentee voting would be safe, legal and rare. Of course, to do this, you would have to make voting in person as convenient as possible, which would mean actually having sufficient infrastructure (polling places, workers, ballots, etc.), early in-person voting, designating election day a state holiday... which would mean spending money and oh hey the current system of voter suppression favors the people who want to end all taxation forever, I hope that works out.
posted by indubitable at 10:58 AM on March 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


actually having sufficient infrastructure (polling places, workers, ballots, etc.), early in-person voting, designating election day a state holiday...

Mass transit, childcare...
posted by Etrigan at 11:10 AM on March 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


I always come back to thinking there's just no valuable reason for voting to be time-limited the way it is. 21 days would create a window such that you'd be sure anyone who was working an on the books job would have some time in there to go vote if they wanted to. Once you provide that sort of opportunity and less crowd pressure a lot of the other problems can sort themselves out. I take my kid to vote in low turnout stuff without a problem; it's no harder than taking him to the grocery. Meaning yeah, it's a pain but it's doable. Objections to it don't amount up to much beyond but I like seeing tv results and arguing about it on metafilter and worrying that things can change over that time window (so?)

I doubt we as a culture care to really innovate and solve this problem, but it feels like there's a lot of ways to do it. I talked about how the electronic poll books work here in Arlington and the way they could do things remotely. We could with very little cutting-edge choices still do a lot to open up voting opportunities, not just fiddle with early voting and start/stop times.

I mean, pie in the sky here pulled straight out of my lower torso - absentee/by mail is a problem because of two things. One, putting the ballot only in the hand of the right person. Two, collecting the vote such that you're sure there's no coercion and no compensation. [1] If you're okay with a decent time gap between the two things you have a lot of choices.

Issue ballots from any bonded and marginally secure place. Banks. The Post Office. The police department. The department of motor vehicles. Businesses with notaries. Whatever. If you're having them call or click in a way that tracks who did the issuing you can police things. The election board database shows that on 2016-03-24:1447 a ballot was issued to phearlez by cortex. If any shenanigans come to light you can investigate.

Collecting the ballot also just requires something resembling a secure location and storage. You don't really need to care if someone promised their vote to someone in exchange for money. That situation already exists - they can take a camera phone picture of their ballot now. But the buyer doesn't know that they didn't subsequently spoil the ballot and change it. So long as some validation is done when turning it in and they have some slight privacy you're fine on that mark (or at least no worse than you are now). You can do validation on collection to make sure it's from someone who is marked as having collected a ballot.

There's cryptographic bells and whistles you can do to make shit even more tamper-resistant. One way ciphers no more complicated than how Metafilter checks your login password can make sure ballots are the ones collected, without actually ruining the secrecy of the ballot. They don't have to be at all onerous on the voter, no no use ssh-keygen, grandma jokes aside.

It's all doable, and having been a part of the huge volunteer army that comprises most of the voting machinery now I have to scoff at the idea that we make it any less careful or deliberate. We consider voting so very important and sacrosanct that we rely on the retired, unemployed, and unemployable[2] to manage this critical and involved thing based on a three hour training session once every few years. I think it's kind of a combination of a miracle and a testament to the devotion of poll workers[3] that the system works as well as it does. It's certainly not a system that reflects well on how serious we really are about running the operation.

[1] Personally I am unconvinced that compensation is really a problem. Make the penalties for paying for votes sufficiently high and actually prosecute/run stings and you can make it impossible to pull off on a scale such that it really changes anything. The bar can easily be higher than actual campaigning/persuading. But we'll call it important anyway for appearance value.

[2] I worked for an institution that granted 16 hours of volunteer leave a year so I could go do it, but I would wager that less than 0.1% of the workforce has that sort of liberty to do this on the clock. My fellow poll workers who were employed tended to be very dedicated people making a personal sacrifice or folks with way above average flexibility in their jobs.

[3] And having stopped working the polls when my paid volunteer hours went away with a new job and a baby I do not include myself in the ranks of the real election heroes. The people who do this year in and year out awe me with their devotion. They're a great reminder that so much of our society would crumble without a small group of the super devoted and an inspiration for the rest of us to Be Better.
posted by phearlez at 12:03 PM on March 24, 2016


I just saw Cruz looking at the camera and calling Trump a "sniveling coward" who needed to "leave Heidi alone". Did Trump actually follow through and go after Cruz's wife? Jesus Christ.
posted by Justinian at 12:28 PM on March 24, 2016


Fresh Air had a segment back in February with Jill Lepore (New Yorker author) based on this article she wrote about the history/evolution of polling in America, but they also discussed the history of the secret ballot at length. How, first there was in-person oral voting, then some states moved to using color-coded party tickets that were printed in the paper (so, you'd cut out the blue ticket to vote for the Dem candidates for example). But, then people would beat up people with the opposing color ticket to prevent them from voting, so some states decided to have the government provide the ballots and an envelope to curb the violence. But, like many good ideas, the secret ballot was then co-opted by people with less awesome motivations -- primarily as a de facto literacy test for immigrants and recently-enfranchised black men.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:52 PM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


I guess Trump invited voters to compare the two women's appearance?
Trump responded with a tweet threatening to "spill the beans" on Heidi Cruz late Tuesday. Then on Thursday tweeted an unflattering picture of the presidential hopeful's wife.
What's his name Turd Blossom said he thought American politics was going back to the 19th century. I thought he meant the gilded age -- inequality, oligarchy, etc. It looks like he meant all the way back to the early 19th century -- puerile character attacks, populist demagoguery, pointed racism, etc.
posted by notyou at 12:58 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, he did, re-tweeting a follower on Twitter who had posted an image implying that Cruz's wife was ugly (at least, I think that's the implication), and therefore there was no need to 'spill the beans' on his wife because that was condemnation enough.

I will not stand for this vicious attack on Ana Gasteyer.
posted by Etrigan at 12:59 PM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


Cruz to Trump: ‘Donald, you’re a sniveling coward. Leave Heidi the hell alone.’
"In Dane, where Cruz had come to tell blue-collar workers about his economic plan, he seemed physically repulsed by having to respond to this.

“Heidi,” the senator said, before looking down and pausing for several seconds. “She is the daughter of Christian missionaries. She lived in Africa as a little girl. She is an unbelievable mom. We’ve two little girls, 7 and 5, Caroline and Catherine. They’re going to join us on the road, and I tell you, I’m not looking forward to telling the girls why Donald Trump is launching insults and attacks at their mother. It is not acceptable. Real men don’t bully women.”

posted by zarq at 1:27 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


He also touched on the "New York" thing again, only this time he's not making an antisemitic dogwhistle:
“Our spouses and our children are off bounds,” Cruz said. “It is not acceptable for a big, loud New York bully to attack my wife. It is not acceptable for him to make insults, to send nasty tweets -- and I don’t know what he does late at night, but he tends to do these at about 11:30 at night, I assume when his fear is at the highest point.”

posted by zarq at 1:29 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Classy, Ted.
posted by zutalors! at 2:37 PM on March 24, 2016






Well, if women turn out to vote in large numbers the Democrats will probably win... and Cruz and Trump are helping make that happen.

But they're also making me ashamed to be an American. I mean, I'm a Clinton supporter and I think she has some flaws, and I also think Sanders has some... But they're both on a whole different level (with Kasich, maybe) than the 12-year-old man-babies at the top of the Republican polls.
posted by mmoncur at 3:13 PM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


But they're [Cinton and Sanders] both on a whole different level (with Kasich, maybe) ...

Since taking office in Ohio, Kasich has passed 16 anti-abortion measures. He passed a law forbidding state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services. He passed another law stripping all funding from Planned Parenthood.

Kasich is just as radical as Cruz and Trump and no friend of women's rights.
posted by JackFlash at 3:34 PM on March 24, 2016 [22 favorites]


Yes, but he's a polite, grown-up version of a radical who doesn't constantly spout idiocy. Frankly he's the kind I would have thought was more dangerous, before this election cycle...
posted by mmoncur at 4:16 PM on March 24, 2016


I don't know why we need to play this "all just as bad" game. They are terrible in different ways, but the Trump fiasco is really a thing apart for so many reasons.
posted by zutalors! at 4:21 PM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't know why we need to play this "all just as bad" game. They are terrible in different ways, but the Trump fiasco is really a thing apart for so many reasons.

You are chained to a desk in a sealed room slowly filling with ice-cold dog piss. To escape, you must choose one of
a) eating a big bowl of human poop
b) eating a big bowl of broken glass
c) eating a big bowl of poop with broken glass croutons and also launching a global thermonuclear war.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:32 PM on March 24, 2016 [9 favorites]


> a _
posted by kyp at 5:39 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


You are chained to a desk in a sealed room slowly filling with ice-cold dog piss. To escape, you must choose one of
a) eating a big bowl of human poop
b) eating a big bowl of broken glass
c) eating a big bowl of poop with broken glass croutons and also launching a global thermonuclear war.


It's the fun game that makes thinking fun!
posted by Trochanter at 5:43 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


wait, if the room is sealed, how is the dog piss getting in? is there a dog in there with you? if you escape, do you get to keep the dog?
posted by indubitable at 5:54 PM on March 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


maybe you could convince the dog to eat the poop?
posted by indubitable at 5:55 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm looking for the pony, of course!
posted by notyou at 6:16 PM on March 24, 2016


it could be worse - it could be warm coors light
posted by pyramid termite at 6:29 PM on March 24, 2016


Regarding vote-by-mail being risky for reasons of coercion, is there any evidence that this has been an actual issue in recent times in the US? As an Oregon resident, I feel a whole fuck-ton more confident in the integrity of my default vote-by-mail ballot than I would dealing with all the vote-in-person hinkiness elsewhere that I've heard about over the years.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:48 PM on March 24, 2016 [6 favorites]


What's his name Turd Blossom said he thought American politics was going back to the 19th century. I thought he meant the gilded age -- inequality, oligarchy, etc. It looks like he meant all the way back to the early 19th century -- puerile character attacks, populist demagoguery, pointed racism, etc.

Hell, they're one step away from cane fights.
posted by octothorpe at 7:26 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hell, they're one step away from cane fights.

When I learned about Charles Sumner in high school I remember thinking, gosh, the past sure was crazy! What it must have been like to live in a world where such a thing could happen!

Ever since 2010 I've been wondering if it might happen. And ever since November or so, I've been kind of waiting for it to happen.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:33 PM on March 24, 2016 [7 favorites]


Can anyone point me to a comprehensive list of all the loathesome things Donald Trump has said and done? Surely there must be one somewhere? My husband has apparently been napping for the last months and thinks this thing about the wives is dramatically worse than anything else he's done and will be the thing that brings him down. (I know.)
posted by HotToddy at 7:54 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


The dude is a rapist, so that's pretty bad. Doesn't seem to hold him back at all though.
posted by Artw at 7:59 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


maybe you could convince the dog to eat the poop?

They really don't seem to need much convincing.
posted by teponaztli at 8:42 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yuck! I have owned many dogs in my life and none have munched on poop. I am aware that it is a thing though.

wait, how did we get here? crikey. Kinda seems germane though.
posted by futz at 8:50 PM on March 24, 2016


MetaFilter: wait, how did we get here? crikey.
posted by homunculus at 9:17 PM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


Can anyone point me to a comprehensive list of all the loathesome things Donald Trump has said and done?

I don't know about "comprehensive," but this link certainly captures the military and defense-related campaign promises that I find most terrifying.

Torture, assassination of innocent families, abandoning the Geneva conventions and the rules of war. This is not standard "Democrats vs. Republicans" stuff. This is something different

On the domestic side, I think this link talks about his promises to execute cop killers (not something the president has jurisdiction over), his retweets of white supremacists and refusal to disavow David Duke, of the KKK.

Then there's deporting all illegal immigrants from Mexico, building The Wall, and banning Muslims from the country, and recently, encouraging violence at his rallies by promising to pay legal fees, reminiscing about the good old days when protesters were carried out on stretchers, and predicting/calling for riots if he doesn't win the nomination. I guess all of that IS a lot to cover in one article...
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:57 PM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oops, that article I linked for examples of his racism actually doesn't even get into the KKK and so on... Here's another source.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:07 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


For HotToddy, I found two listings of some but by no means all of what you seek:
Politifact: Statements we say are Pants on Fire! (guess who has the most entries)
Huffington Post: 18 Real Things Donald Trump Has Actually Said About Women

While looking around I found three other Trump-related items of interest:

IBTimes has a neat roundup (published March 11) of anti-Trump protest photos.

ABC TV (Australia) Interview with Michael D'Antonio, author of "Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success". He talks about Trump's bully behaviour as a child and an adult. Ends kinda limply but has a couple of memorable moments , e.g. "It was like meeting a Mafia boss."

John Keane's article "Trump, Trump, Trump ..." discusses what his role in the 2016 election demonstrates about the plight of democracy in the US.

And now after this trump-link-dump I need to go and think about something, anything else.
posted by valetta at 12:26 AM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh wait, forgot one. ABC News: US election campaign: Donald Trump benefitting from all the publicity money can't buy. The article contains some recent examples of donaldspeak and a bit of an overview of where the election stands now. This stood out for me:
Recent analysis shows he's had almost $US2 billion worth of free media coverage while spending comparatively little on his campaign. Donald Trump attracts viewers; be they supporters or gawkers — they're there. Take CNN for example, which has been charging up to $US200,000 per 30-second ad spot during the GOP debates. That's a whopping 40 times more than usual.
posted by valetta at 1:09 AM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


The National Enquirer has published a detailed account of Ted Cruz's affairs. Here's one conservative blog's reaction, identification of at least 3 of the women, and some other interesting info, including an accusation that Breitbart already knew but was told to keep it quiet by management.

No idea if it's true, but if it is, this probably seals it for Trump and might explain why Trump baited Cruz with the wife insults. Plus, seems like a natural plot progression for the GOP soap opera / reality show going on this year.
posted by honestcoyote at 2:14 AM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


So for now the sources confirming the affairs is the National Enquirer, a Breitbart reporter, and a Washington Times columnist. These aren't sources that are always wrong, but they are sources more likely to be peddling misinformation than information. I'd definitely urge people not to get too invested in this story for now.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:30 AM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


There is also speculation about a sex tape, I've seen no evidence to confirm this, but since I secretly hate you all I will introduce you to this phrase:

TED CRUZ SEX TAPE

Now the idea will, short of lobotomy, always be in your head.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:32 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Breitbart and the Washington Times are obviously not trustworthy. But the National Enquirer has a pretty high standard for their reporting. They've had these standards for years after losing some large lawsuits. If they're reporting it, then there's probably something there. And if it's true Breitbart held off on the story because of ideological / political reasons, then that somewhat confirms it.
posted by honestcoyote at 2:50 AM on March 25, 2016


Yeah I dunno.

Failing health and a deadly thirst for power are driving Hillary Clinton to an early grave, The National ENQUIRER has learned in a bombshell investigation.

The desperate and deteriorating 67-year-old won’t make it to the White House — because she’ll be dead in six months, sources told The ENQUIRER.

Amazingly, her ultra-competitive husband is the one pressuring her to stay on the campaign trail despite her decline!

“Cruel Bill would rather see her drop than miss a single vote,” a source told The ENQUIRER. “Hillary shouldn’t be on the campaign trail — she should be home making out her will!”

posted by Drinky Die at 3:03 AM on March 25, 2016


TED CRUZ SEX TAPE

Oddly, the image that brings to mind for me is of a roll of tape, with a picture of smiling Ted Cruz on the box. The tape is enthusiastically used by couples in intimate circumstances, though I have no idea what for.
posted by Grangousier at 3:25 AM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


I imagine it's used for permanently getting the idea of sex out of people's heads for birth control purposes.
posted by mmoncur at 3:36 AM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


It would certainly be effective for that purpose.
posted by Grangousier at 3:40 AM on March 25, 2016


Drinky Die: "So for now the sources confirming the affairs is the National Enquirer" ...

The National Enquirer you and I remember from the 80s is not the National Enquirer of recent political storybreaking.
posted by barnacles at 4:29 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]




I don't even know why we are talking about the Cruz scandal, I think their revelation that Kurt Cobain was murdered is much bigger news.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:41 AM on March 25, 2016


The Ted Cruz story in the NE is different because they published it along with identifying information, including blurred photos, of non-public figures (the women who were supposedly involved). This changes the risk calculus for the magazine from a libel perspective, and makes it more likely to be based in fact.

Who has an affair with TED CRUZ?! I hope Heidi kicks him to curb.
posted by sallybrown at 5:14 AM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


Who has an affair with TED CRUZ?!

To be fair, his Tinder profile pic is somewhat misleading.
posted by box at 5:34 AM on March 25, 2016


TED CRUZ SEX TAPE

Wow, reptilian pornography -- who'd a-thunk ?
Never saw that coming...
posted by y2karl at 6:09 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie Sanders Lays Out His Requirements For Endorsing Hillary Clinton
Sanders also listed policy demands he would make of Clinton, including a single-payer health care system, a $15 an hour minimum wage, tougher regulation of the finance industry, closing corporate tax loopholes and “a vigorous effort to address climate change.”

* Raising the minimum wage to $15 wouldn't be much of a stretch. She supports $12 per hour, with $15 for states that "can go higher" like New York and California.
* Tougher regulation of the finance industry is already a part of her platform.
* Closing corporate tax loopholes is already part of her platform.
* Climate change reform is also already a part of her platform. The only thing she hasn't done (as far as I can tell) is call for a total ban on fracking.

Which leaves....

Single Payer Health Care. And this is a problem, because she has said she won't fight for single-payer because it's unrealistic that it would pass in the current political climate. So once again, they're going to butt heads on the issue.
posted by zarq at 6:22 AM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


Tougher regulation of the finance industry is already a part of her platform.
"She would veto any legislation that attempts to weaken the law and would fully enforce its protections."
When her choice of Secretary of Treasury is Just Another Fucking Industry-Insider, and all she's committed to is preserving the status-quo, I don't see how effective her policies are going to be.
posted by mikelieman at 6:53 AM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's an interesting dilemma. "Outsider" in this case cannot be someone who lacks understanding of how national (domestic) and international economies are interrelated. They must comprehend not only economic complexities, but how market forces work. So, experience working with the financial industry is extremely important for anyone placed in the Secretary role.

On the other hand, we do want someone in the position who is going to be impartial, force through regulation for the good of the country and in doing so rein in the excesses that led to the crash of '08.

Clinton hasn't mentioned any specific person that she has in mind for the position, correct? Because to date, (as far as I know,) she's only said:
"Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton said a Treasury secretary doesn’t need to have a Wall Street pedigree to be successful, but stopped short of committing to appointing an outsider to the post should she be elected president.

It’s unclear what the term means to her Democratic opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton said in an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program.

“When you talk about Wall Street, are we talking about every bank or are we talking about a particular part of New York? That’s never really clarified. What I believe is that there are good actors and bad actors in every part of our economy,” Clinton said.

“You have to have a Treasury secretary who understands the economy” in the U.S. and the world, said Clinton. “I think there are a lot more places where one can and should look for such a Treasury secretary.

posted by zarq at 7:44 AM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


Two people to keep an eye on are Gary Gensler and Larry Fink.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:00 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Today should be fun. I'm waiting for:
1. Trump tweet referencing #cruzsexscandal
2. A MSM reporter to ask Cruz a question about it.
3. Cruz issuing a statement or giving a press conference.

I think that, if true, Cruz is completely toast. That only leaves Kasich, which is a non-starter if they don't want a riot at the convention. As of now, 3 of the 5 women have been identified, one of which is Trump's spokesperson. Sad!
posted by leotrotsky at 8:42 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Katrina Pierson
Katrina Pierson – Verified account ‏@KatrinaPierson

What's worse? People who actually believe the trash in tabloids, or the ones who know it's false &spread it anyway? #stupidity on all levels

posted by Drinky Die at 8:43 AM on March 25, 2016


I think that, if true, Cruz is completely toast.

I'm not sure if this makes him any MORE toast than he already was. He isn't on track to beat Trump for delegates, and I don't think they would have wound up choosing him at the convention because, having a competent team of loyal followers, he's actually more dangerous to them in the long run than Trump (who could be written off as an anomaly and disavowed as soon as the election is over)
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:53 AM on March 25, 2016


Katrina Pierson
Katrina Pierson – Verified account ‏@KatrinaPierson


that twitter feed is a horrorshow
posted by zutalors! at 8:55 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Insightful series of tweets from Jeet Heer of New Republic, who's been killing it this election. Here it is all together:

There are two paths to GOP nomination: a Stalin Path and a Mussolini path. The Stalin path is to gain power through the party, the Mussolini path is to use the threat of violence to scare elite into surrender. The Stalin path involves filling key positions (in this delegates) with loyal minions. This is Cruz's strategy. A brief history lesson in next few tweets from @billmon1 on what Stalin path entails:

@billmon1: “History lesson: After revolution, Most of the Bolshevics focused on Politburo, central committee -- loci for policy, ideology. But Stalin understood that control of the Secretariat allowed him to put men loyal to him in positions throughout the party apparatus. Formal lines of authority didn't matter: They reported to him, were part of his machine. By the time others realized what he was doing... it was way too late. He had control of the party at levels they barely knew existed, couldn't reach.”

Cruz is hoping to outwit Trump the way Stalin outwitted Trotsky: by controlling the party apparatus that makes the rules. This is the Stalin path: Trump nominally "wins" the delegates but they are really Cruz loyalists.

The Mussolini path is to claim sidestep baroque party rules and control the streets. Going into Cleveland, Cruz might control party apparatus but Trump can claim plurality of votes backed up by an angry mob. Remember Trump's words on brokered convention: "I think you'd have riots. I'm representing a tremendous many, many millions of people."

The grim choice the GOP will face in Cleveland is between the cunning apparatchik seizing control of party or surrender to the mob.

Who is the lesser evil for the GOP: Trump or Cruz? Trump is a more extreme personality but Cruz will stick around longer. The case for Trump is he'll run once, likely lose, and then fade. He's old and he has no organization. He's Asimov's Mule: no heirs. The case for Trump in a nutshell:

@millerunc: “If Trump is the nominee and loses badly, GOP can excise him and his movement from history, and attempt biz as usual in 2020.”

If Cruz controls party machinery, he's not going to let it go. He's young, ambitious, and has a very loyal cadre
.

posted by showbiz_liz at 9:02 AM on March 25, 2016 [11 favorites]


I can't believe I didn't see this twist coming in the soap opera. One of the alleged mistresses of Ted Cruz is a Trump spokesperson.

On the one hand, yeah, I can see how that might drive someone to campaign for Trump. On the other hand, just stringing together the words Ted Cruz and alleged mistresses - oof.
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:03 AM on March 25, 2016


I think that, if true, Cruz is completely toast.

I mean, he's not getting the nomination anyway, but we've seen over the years (Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, etc) that evangelicals don't care what their leaders do, only what they say.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:11 AM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


What I mean is Cruz had an outside chance of getting the nomination through a combination of a brokered convention and long knives. I think that's done now. This takes any momentum he had and completely quashes it for this election cycle.
posted by leotrotsky at 9:19 AM on March 25, 2016






Mod note: comment nixed, let's just, ugh.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:27 AM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


[comment nixed, let's just, ugh.]

227.5 days to go
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:27 AM on March 25, 2016 [13 favorites]


I don't think humor is Hillary's strong suit, but she has decent timing with Jimmy Kimmel while he mansplains for her.
posted by peeedro at 9:28 AM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


She seems more comfortable with Kimmel than I've ever seen her on a late night show. She just doesn't do that stuff all that well. Not nearly as well as Obama, who's the master.
posted by zutalors! at 9:33 AM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


Michael Hayden, creepy NSA director who wrote a book, currently on CSPAN talking about how Trump is out of bounds on killing family and waterboarding.
posted by zutalors! at 9:40 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]




Not nearly as well as Obama, who's the master.

It's been fun/depressing to see his approval ratings veer back up as people look around and think "oh man we didn't know how good we had it, did we"
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:50 AM on March 25, 2016 [14 favorites]


I was kind of stunned to see all the Sanders' supporters criticizing Obama because I feel like we have had a revolution in the last eight years culturally. I don't think it's natural cultural drift, I think it's the example of this President that we have more open discussion of sexism, racism, LGBT rights, etc.

I think this is why it is important to some to have an "identity politics" President. The idea of going back to a white male makes my heart sink.
posted by zutalors! at 9:53 AM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


What is Bernie's Jewishness—chopped liver?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:57 AM on March 25, 2016 [12 favorites]


I don't think it's natural cultural drift, I think it's the example of this President that we have more open discussion of sexism, racism, LGBT rights, etc.

I mean, part of the cultural drift was litigating same-sex marriage, which started around 2002. About 8 states had same-sex marriage before Joe Biden saying he supported it. I do think the Obamas have had a lot to do with how we talk about race in this country.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:58 AM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]



I mean, part of the cultural drift was litigating same-sex marriage


I totally agree with this, I just always want to be careful not to give him the credit for the decades of work by activists.
posted by zutalors! at 10:03 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump as Asimov's Mule is an excellent descriptor.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:14 AM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


What is Bernie's Jewishness—chopped liver?

It's certainly not nothing, but it doesn't make him not white.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:19 AM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


The allegations that Cruz was involved with campaign consultants associated with at least 2 rival campaigns is remarkable as is the allegation that Cruz paid off the Fiorina campaign to prevent this info from leaking.

Even if it's totally false I think it's going to damage Cruz at a critical time when it was looking like he and Kasich might be surging enough to maybe keep Trump from hitting the minimum number of delegates.

The level of ridiculous that is the Republican 2016 nomination is simply insane. It's turtles all the way down.
posted by vuron at 11:41 AM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


Do we really need to discuss this? If the rumors are true, haven't those women suffered enough already?
posted by snofoam at 11:55 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


If this election were a West Wing season, we'd be telling Sorkin to get off the shrooms.
posted by Etrigan at 11:57 AM on March 25, 2016 [11 favorites]


Like it or not it's going to have a very significant impact on the nomination process moving forward which would lead people to suspect that it's timing is more or less organized to help Trump out during a time when his path to the nomination was looking sketchier. Wisconsin suddenly might not be a blow out for Cruz.

Yes it's sordid and tabloid but just because it's sordid and tabloid doesn't mean that it's not going to dominate the news cycle.
posted by vuron at 12:00 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


I feel like we should just vote now. Nobody thinks Trump or Cruz can win, and it would save a lot of lives to just vote now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:04 PM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


I remember this game I used to play with my best friend when I was a teenager, where we would take turns calling each other the most vile names imaginable until one of us grossed out the other too much to continue. Uttering the phrase "TED CRUZ SEX TAPE" would have been like playing as Odd Job in GoldenEye 64: too cheap and obvious because it will always, always win.
posted by indubitable at 12:27 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ralph Nader: Why Bernie Sanders was right to run as a Democrat
"The two-party system suffocates independent challengers. I would know."
posted by Trochanter at 12:36 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


Even more vile than the idea of a sex tape is the gleeful anticipation of Trump supporters waiting for their Dear Leader to comment on it. They can't wait to see how he's going to humiliate Cruz over this.

I suspect Trump will downplay it, oddly enough, because he has too many similar skeletons in his closet. If it's true (and considering one of the alleged women works on his campaign I'm sure he's asked that question already), it's going to cripple Cruz enough without him having to get further kicks in. He'll still get a shot in, because he can't help himself, but the less he says the likelier the same charge could be leveled at him.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 1:17 PM on March 25, 2016




I feel like we should just vote now. Nobody thinks Trump or Cruz can win, and it would save a lot of lives to just vote now.

Nobody has thought Cruz could win for a good six months now. President Trump, however, remains horrifyingly possible.
posted by Artw at 1:27 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


From Rolling Stone: Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales.

Wow.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:30 PM on March 25, 2016


I think a lot of pundits are making an error that a marked preference for one candidate (in this case Sanders) means a repudiation of the other candidate (Clinton) when in reality it might just represent a preference but not a rejection.

But unfortunately a lot of pundits tend to assume that everything needs to be a binary choice that a vote for Sanders is more based on a rejection of Clinton than a preference for Sanders positions.
posted by vuron at 1:31 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


I believe Sanders is leaning towards making it a binary choice. He's not going to endorse Clinton unless/until she talks about and endorses a plan for single-payer healthcare.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:32 PM on March 25, 2016


And let's be honest this issue has been one that Taibbi has been beating on for what 14 years now? I'm not really sure that he doesn't see everything from the lens of Iraq war.
posted by vuron at 1:33 PM on March 25, 2016


Wow.

It's not often said, but is anyone in actual doubt over this?
posted by Artw at 1:34 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's not often said

o_O
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:37 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thanks for the link kyp. Taibbi summed up nicely how I feel about Clinton.
posted by futz at 1:42 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


@vuron, the Iraq War is just one of the examples in Matt's article.
posted by kyp at 1:43 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders trying to make his support is contingent upon a single-payer model just means that his claims of supporting Democratic unity were false. If avoiding a Trump presidency is the number one concern then going "lol just kidding Hillary, I'm totally not supporting you" is kinda bullshit but he's been increasingly frank that his running as a Democrat was based upon convenience rather than party loyalty.

Furthermore we can have universal health care without necessarily going to a single-payer model. There are plenty of options of achieving universal coverage while also maintaining a semi-private model, indeed several European countries have greatly benefited from a mixed public -private insurance market without going to single-payer.
posted by vuron at 1:44 PM on March 25, 2016 [8 favorites]


I believe Sanders is leaning towards making it a binary choice. He's not going to endorse Clinton unless/until she talks about and endorses a plan for single-payer healthcare.

Do you have evidence for that? Everything I've seen in this campaign says that he'll endorse Clinton if he loses.
posted by Justinian at 1:44 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


I suspect Trump will downplay it, oddly enough, because he has too many similar skeletons in his closet.

Not exactly.
He's playing the same game he has been. Ostensibly denying, but actually repeatedly pointing it out and bringing attention to it.
posted by FJT at 1:46 PM on March 25, 2016


Not often said in political discourse, we at that shit all the time. There's this polite pretense that people might have voted for the war out of anything other than political expedience.
posted by Artw at 1:47 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


And in the interest of stoking the anti-establishment fire:
The Human Rights Campaign Is Proving Bernie Right
But opposing Duckworth only reinforces the group’s image problem. By all accounts, Duckworth is an exceptional candidate. She is an Iraq War veteran who was wounded in battle; the first Asian-American woman elected to Congress in Illinois; the first disabled woman to be elected to the House of Representatives, ever. If there ever was a candidate that an organization accused of having a diversity problem should not be opposing, it’s Tammy Duckworth. Choosing the white male candidate in this race over the Asian-American female candidate—someone who happens to have a better voting record anyway—is probably the worst way of convincing your detractors that you are taking a core problem seriously.
posted by kyp at 1:48 PM on March 25, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sanders trying to make his support is contingent upon a single-payer model just means that his claims of supporting Democratic unity were false. If avoiding a Trump presidency is the number one concern then going "lol just kidding Hillary, I'm totally not supporting you" is kinda bullshit but he's been increasingly frank that his running as a Democrat was based upon convenience rather than party loyalty.

It also proves that he has no actual interest in a "revolution" to get the supermajority in Congress he would need to pass his measures. He wouldn't even want to help Hillary get a supermajority for the Democrats, and it's beyond me how that could not be important.
posted by zutalors! at 1:50 PM on March 25, 2016 [9 favorites]


And let's be honest this issue has been one that Taibbi has been beating on for what 14 years now? I'm not really sure that he doesn't see everything from the lens of Iraq

Good job we are no suffer any consequences for that bad decision!
posted by Artw at 1:50 PM on March 25, 2016 [8 favorites]


No Taibbi is making the assertion that based upon assertion that because millenials are supporting Sanders in large majorities that they are automatically against everything that Clinton is supposed to be a banner carrier for.

It's a logical fallacy, it might be true but it might not be and Taibbi is engaging in logical fallacies to assert something without clear evidence supporting his position. I understand that he's engaging in punditry and pundits often base a bunch of their reasoning based upon specious evidence but I get really frustrated because it's hard to call out bullshit artists on the right-wing when there are plenty of people selling bullshit on our side as well.
posted by vuron at 1:50 PM on March 25, 2016


So you're arguing that millenialsvwere not hugely and negatively impacted by the Iraq war and the banking crisis of 2008, or are you arguing that they are too dumb to know it?
posted by Artw at 1:55 PM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


there are plenty of people selling bullshit on our side

you mean establishment democrats? "For young voters, the foundational issues of our age have been the Iraq invasion, the financial crisis, free trade, mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, police brutality, debt and income inequality, among others. And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues."
posted by kliuless at 1:57 PM on March 25, 2016 [14 favorites]


No Taibbi is making the assertion that based upon assertion that because millenials are supporting Sanders in large majorities that they are automatically against everything that Clinton is supposed to be a banner carrier for.

Why do you think millennials overwhelmingly support Sanders?
posted by kyp at 1:59 PM on March 25, 2016


From the Taibbi piece:
As a mock-Hillary in a 2007 Saturday Night Live episode put it, "Democrats know me…. They know my support for the Iraq War has always been insincere."

Paste in the Nancy Reagan stuff.

Somebody was asking earlier what HRC could do that would convince you she's trustworthy? The implication was that the answer "nothing" was somehow unreasonable.
posted by Trochanter at 2:00 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


The implication was more that if there's nothing she could do to convince you she's trustworthy, talking about how she ought to do X, Y, or Z to be seen as trustworthy is disingenuous.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:05 PM on March 25, 2016 [8 favorites]


The US has engaged in 60+ years of regime change adventurism throughout the world. Sometimes that's been to oust dictators and sometimes it's been to keep them in power. I personally would like to back away from using violent (covert or overt) regime change as a form of "advancing US interests" but it seems to be a favored tool of both the Republicans and Democrats since the emergence of the US as a world superpower.

I think that it's easy to say that regime change in Iraq was the wrong idea based upon a backwards examination and I also think that the Bush administration case in the wake of 9/11 had massive holes in it. However I also understand the political environment (especially in places like New York) made rejecting the Bush case (no matter how flimsy) politically non-viable. Yes in a perfect world politicians never make bad decision and they never make decisions based upon political calculus that put lives on the line but it's pretty clear we don't live in that world.

I don't support Hillary because I think she's a perfect leader with a spotless moral and ethical record. I suspect that any future president will engage in ethical compromises that I personally would never want to have to handle such as being willing to take lives to protect lives. Is Sanders possibly better than Clinton? Maybe but I find both of them to be infinitely preferable to the alternative and I think that Clinton if she's elected will continue to listen to progressive voices even if she leans towards the center.
posted by vuron at 2:07 PM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


Bernie Sanders supports the drone program, so at some level this just becomes "how many brown people is it ok to kill, and how?"
posted by zutalors! at 2:11 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


Personally it can be explained as this

Want Do Not Want
Sanders---------------------Clinton------------------------|-----------------------------------------Trump

Millenials can be supporting Sanders by overwhelming majorities because they like his political platform rather than detesting Clinton. In the absence of Sanders does that mean that the majority of those millenials suddenly switch to Trump? Nope because Clinton is still widely perceived as being vastly better than Trump in a head to head race.

So you can have a marked preference for 1 candidate over the other candidate without actually rejecting the second candidate.

Now I do think that there are some completely anti-establishment types that support Sanders that will be attracted by Trump's faux-outsider image and go for Trump but that can generally be explained by the acceptance that political opinions don't entirely translate to a single-axis chart.

You can be also aligned along the Authoritarian vs Libertarian axis for instance. Many people regardless of their other political positions show up strongly on the Authoritarian side of that axis and are aligned strongly with Trump regardless of whether they support his social agenda.
posted by vuron at 2:16 PM on March 25, 2016


Hillary Clinton on the use of drone strikes. Emphasis mine:
“Clearly, the efforts that were made by the United States, in cooperation with our allies in Afghanistan and certainly the Afghan government, to prevent the threat that was in Pakistan from crossing the border, killing Afghans, killing Americans, Brits and others, was aimed at targets that had been identified and were considered to be threats. The numbers about potential civilian casualties I take with a somewhat big grain of salt because there has been other studies which have proven there not to have been the number of civilian casualties. But also in comparison to what? The Pakistani armed services were always saying, ‘Well, let us bomb these places.’ That would have been far more devastating in terms of casualties. But of course anyone who is an innocent bystander, especially a child, who’s caught up in any operation against terrorists, that is a cause of great concern and it is a cause of real disappointment and regret on our part.”
posted by kyp at 2:17 PM on March 25, 2016 [7 favorites]


Why is this even a question? The great majority of Sanders supporters will support Clinton in the general just as the great majority of Clinton supporters would support Sanders in the general. Is that really controversial?
posted by Justinian at 2:17 PM on March 25, 2016 [10 favorites]


My saying that Sanders supports drone strikes is not my saying that Clinton doesn't. No one is holding her up as a perfect antidote to our nation building, aggressive tendencies though, and no one can provide any valid case for why Sanders would want to support such a program, except that it wouldn't get him elected.
posted by zutalors! at 2:20 PM on March 25, 2016


and no one can provide any valid case for why Sanders would want to support such a program, except that it wouldn't get him elected.

What constitutes a valid case?

Why can't Sanders have a genuinely held belief that drones are a useful tool for defense, and which of his other beliefs does that conflict with?

Sanders on drones:
“I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case,” Sanders said.

“What you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective,” he added.

“There are times and places where they have been absolutely counter-effective and have caused more problems than they have solved. When you kill innocent people, what the end result is that people in the region become anti-American who otherwise would not have been.”
posted by kyp at 2:24 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


Exactly, is it okay to kill one person to save a hundred? Is it okay to fire a guided missile into a mixed area where civilian casualties are guaranteed to save a thousand? Is it okay to engage in regime change if there is a genocide or ethnic cleansing going on?

Personally I tend to think that violence is never the right solution but I also understand that political leadership probably has to be willing to engage in some level of sanctioned violence in order to protect it's citizenry. I think there are always going to be times were our morals and ethics come into conflict with the perceived need to protect US citizens. Yes that privileges one group of people over another but that's kinda the deal when you become a politician. At some point in time your hands will get dirty and it really depends on whether you think that some politicians can make those choices in a way that aligns with your values.

I can totally understand people whose moral values are incompatible with the Iraq war being unwilling to support Clinton. That is a respectable position. Personally I'm willing to look past her past moral failings because the alternative is more terrifying to me and honestly I can't go back in time and prevent the Iraq War but I can put pressure on the Democrats to avoid those sorts of mistakes in the future.
posted by vuron at 2:27 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


In election-adjacent news, it looks like the chances for Obama's Supreme Court nominee might be dead in the water after this severely damaging exposé was published in today's Chicago Tribune.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:27 PM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


Cruz doesn't want to endorse or "copulate with" Trump

this fuckin' primary season, man
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:28 PM on March 25, 2016 [12 favorites]


Drones 100% kill civilians. I don't think it's realistic to say that he'll do drone attacks and they'll be so much better than Obama's completely deadly drone attacks.
posted by zutalors! at 2:29 PM on March 25, 2016


I agree that drones 100% kill civilians, just as tanks kill civilians, helicopters kill civilians, guns kill civilians, etc.

But I think his record and beliefs on interventionism speaks for itself, and that he is sincere in what he believes. And that his overall approach to national security will ultimately result in less civilian deaths.
posted by kyp at 2:34 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


So Cruz says, "Trump may be a rat, but I have no desire to copulate with him." So... it's normal for him to desire to copulate with rats and Trump is the exception?
posted by peeedro at 2:36 PM on March 25, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't think it's "just as" because drones are utilized at a remove.

Look, if you support all of Sanders' policies without question, you are still supporting US aggression and murder elsewhere if you want to justify that behavior. He supports it as much as Clinton does. He is not coming in to radically change our place in the world. "Oh it'll be less dead brown people" doesn't really cut it.
posted by zutalors! at 2:39 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


he's (very badly) accusing trump of being a ratfucker and saying he won't do the same.
posted by nadawi at 2:39 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


If he is rodentsexual, then obviously the affairs were made up.
posted by snofoam at 2:40 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Look, if you support all of Sanders' policies without question, you are still supporting US aggression and murder elsewhere if you want to justify that behavior.

Are you saying we're not pure enough in our wish to be more careful with drone strikes?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:41 PM on March 25, 2016 [8 favorites]


I don't think Sanders is this great progressive candidate because he supports a lot of things that are very mainstream, but people seem to want to bend in any direction to support them, and I find that very odd.

I don't support a lot of the things Clinton has done, but I've had my progressive card stripped away because I support her, so.
posted by zutalors! at 2:44 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've already made so many jokes about Cruz being a horde of rats in a human-shaped skin bag that now he goes and lays this awkward ratfucking comment right at my feet and I feel nothing
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:44 PM on March 25, 2016 [11 favorites]


severely damaging exposé was published in today's Chicago Tribune.

this election season has killed my ability to see humor apparently - is that a joke or do people think "he was kind of a jerk when he was 12" is enough to tank his chances?
posted by nadawi at 2:44 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


nadawi, that's gotta be a joke.
posted by zutalors! at 2:45 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


I sincerely don't understand how his support for one tool in a vast American military arsenal invalidates his very real voting and speaking record on non-intervention.

Even if it does, we are not comparing Sanders in isolation here; he is running against another candidate, and both can be judged on their merits as far as warmongering is concerned. At the end of the day, we lot for the lesser evil.
posted by kyp at 2:45 PM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't think drone strikes are just one tool, I think they're a pretty unethical tool and have helped cultivate more extremism.

I see a lot of parallels between Trump and Sanders supporters in the "everything our guy does is really, really great" vein.

That's not personal to anyone here but the more time goes on in this cycle, the more I see it. I don't think that's how we have a good political system.
posted by zutalors! at 2:49 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


but people seem to want to bend in any direction to support them, and I find that very odd

I support him not because he is Progressive Jesus, but because he is progressive. And progressives aren't a homogeneous group; I have not had to bend any of my personal beliefs to support him.

And I hope this doesn't come across as snarky, I just want to explain my position.
posted by kyp at 2:52 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


Right, and you can be progressive and still vote for Hillary Clinton.
posted by zutalors! at 2:54 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


is that a joke or do people think "he was kind of a jerk when he was 12" is enough to tank his chances?

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going with extremely deadpan humor. That, or the saddest attempt at swift-boating (slow-boating?) we're likely ever to see.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:55 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues."

That's, at best, an oversimplification. First, hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to point out things that went wrong, after the fact. And the Democratic Party was right on things like gun control, health care, abortion, civil rights issues, and Supreme Court appointments. Yeah, it's great millennials are focusing on other issues (Iraq, financial crisis, inequality) now, but it doesn't necessarily mean the Democratic Party was wrong to choose certain things to focus on. And it also doesn't mean that the issues millennials are not focusing on for this election are "safe" (for example, Republicans have been trying to shut down women's health centers throughout the South).

And to add to that, millennials don't necessarily all agree either. Sure, some of them are on the right side of certain issues, but some of them also support Donald Trump. So, I don't think we should rely solely on their judgment more than other voting blocs.

And finally, the statement is also assuming that Democrats even fully agreed with each other through a period of 30 years on these issues, and that's just not true. We still have a sitting president that voted against the Iraq invasion.
posted by FJT at 2:56 PM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


Right, and you can be progressive and still vote for Hillary Clinton.

100% agree with that statement.

I don't think the drone discussion is very constructive if we're not going to include both candidates when we talk about it, so this is the last I'll say on this matter.
posted by kyp at 3:06 PM on March 25, 2016


And to add to that, millennials don't necessarily all agree either. Sure, some of them are on the right side of certain issues, but some of them also support Donald Trump. So, I don't think we should rely solely on their judgment more than other voting blocs.

Reuters polling indicates that millennials also overwhelmingly favor Sanders over Trump, by a 62 to 22 margin:
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_14/filters/RESP_AGE:-99|-4

In fact, if you continue playing with that graph, support for Sanders actually drops when you start including people over 30.
posted by kyp at 3:15 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


At the end of the day, we lot for the lesser evil.

Why are we satisfied with a "less evil" foreign policy but not a "good one"? Not to pick on Sanders supporters, but they don't like incrementalist domestic policy, but they seem to be okay with incrementalist foreign policy?

I keep saying this: America should mean more to the world than war and business, and it seems that recently foreign policy has been reduced to a slider that we can adjust for more or less war/business. I'm hoping that Hillary Cinton's experience in State will lead a renewed charge on cultural/soft power diplomacy that we've kind of left withering or ceded to private concerns.

And I want to hear that every time Donald Trump says, "That wall is getting 10 feet higher", someone responds with, "Every time you say that, we're gonna take 10,000 more refugees."
posted by FJT at 3:22 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


Not to pick on Sanders supporters, but they don't like incrementalist domestic policy, but they seem to be okay with incrementalist foreign policy?


Well said.
posted by zutalors! at 3:24 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why are we satisfied with a "less evil" foreign policy but not a "good one"? Not to pick on Sanders supporters, but they don't like incrementalist domestic policy, but they seem to be okay with incrementalist foreign policy?

To answer the broader question, because at the end of the day, largely due to first-past-the-post voting, Americans almost always have to settle between 2 candidates.

Hillary = incrementalist domestic policy, incrementalist foreign policy
Bernie = sweeping domestic policy, better-than-incrementalist foreign policy

So I choose Bernie.

Why is it a knock on Sanders supporters that they would want the more progressive candidate, as imperfect as he is?
posted by kyp at 3:28 PM on March 25, 2016 [12 favorites]


Petition: Allow Open Carry of Firearms at the Quicken Loans Arena during the RNC Convention in July. Has quickly gotten 15,000+ signatures.
posted by Wordshore at 3:34 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]



Petition: Allow Open Carry of Firearms at the Quicken Loans Arena during the RNC Convention in July. Has quickly gotten 15,000+ signatures.


Poor Cleveland.
posted by zutalors! at 3:36 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


All three remaining Republican candidates have spoken out on the issue and are unified in their opposition to Barack HUSSEIN Obama's "gun-free zones."
OK.
posted by kyp at 3:38 PM on March 25, 2016




Like seriously, white people real mad, I get it.
posted by zutalors! at 3:38 PM on March 25, 2016


Corporate Media Tries to Bury Sanders Alive

"Sanders poses a greater threat to the interests of Wall Street than Trump does. This may also shape how corporate media covers the election; why they seem in such a hurry to write off the Sanders candidacy. Corporate America really does not want a president Sanders, and it appears mostly to be prepared to bury Sanders long before he’s dead."
posted by Trochanter at 3:40 PM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]




#feelthebird
posted by zutalors! at 3:44 PM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


If it were a Trump rally they'd yell at him to kill and roast it because America
posted by zutalors! at 3:45 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


#feelthebird

New campaign image.
posted by Wordshore at 3:46 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


Corporate Media Tries to Bury Sanders Alive

The guy in this article claims that Sanders' chances in the absence of superdelegates are close to 50/50 which is absurd. It's just not in touch with reality. (Well he claims they are closer to 50/50 than to 80/20, which implies they are better than 65/35... so still stupid). He's just factually wrong.
posted by Justinian at 3:47 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


Can't have those migratory birds taking jobs away from American avians. They don't send their best, you know. That's why we have to build a WALL ACROSS THE VERY SKIES
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:50 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


#feelthebird

New campaign image.


I want a stuffed animal of that
posted by zutalors! at 3:50 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sorry, I take back what I said about Progressive Jesus, apparently Bernie Sanders has dominion over winged animals.

So is he Progressive St. Francis or Progressive Cinderella?
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:53 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]




So what happens with the Cruz story at this point? The Enquirer is very gun shy about stories like this they can't source these days because of lawsuits. Doesn't that mean they very likely have something here?
posted by Justinian at 4:03 PM on March 25, 2016


Two Americas.
posted by Wordshore at 4:03 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Progressive Snow White maybe.
posted by kyp at 4:03 PM on March 25, 2016




The Enquirer has an excellent record when it comes to real deal political stories. I would be *very* surprised if this story was phony.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:50 PM on March 25, 2016




Furthermore we can have universal health care without necessarily going to a single-payer model. There are plenty of options of achieving universal coverage while also maintaining a semi-private model, indeed several European countries have greatly benefited from a mixed public -private insurance market without going to single-payer.

In complete frankness, fuck every single health insurance company and never ever forget that every dollar they spend on operations and marketing is one that could have been used directly on patient care.

There is no logical reason for their continued existence at the expense of the health of our nation. It's time to put them out of our misery for good.
posted by mikelieman at 5:16 PM on March 25, 2016 [17 favorites]


Jann sums it up: "Those of us there learned a very clear lesson: America chooses its presidents from the middle, not from the ideological wings."

Another, less charitable reading of Nixon is that 72 was the most rigged election in modern history. There is a reason I phrase it as, "The tabulating computers will deliver the expected results.", and only part of the reason is informed by 30 years of Information Technology Security and financial auditing experience
posted by mikelieman at 5:30 PM on March 25, 2016


Here is the logical reason for their continued existence... if one of them denies you, you can switch to another. With single payer, either the service is covered or it isn't, and there is no recourse. This is personally relevant to me because I have kids with a rare disease who take an expensive medication which is covered (albeit with a hideous copay) by my insurance, but which I understand is not covered by the medical systems of many countries with single payer. I get it... high costs, and only a few people benefit. But I'm glad I don't live in one of those countries. There are some advantages to the having options.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:36 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


At a Trump rally, they would want to ban birds just until they figure out what's going on
posted by zutalors! at 5:36 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


With single payer, either the service is covered or it isn't, and there is no recourse.

I don't want to get into specifics or a derail, but this makes me wonder how our current Public Non-Option handles this situation.
posted by mikelieman at 5:44 PM on March 25, 2016


if one of them denies you, you can switch to another.

If you have insurance through your employer, you pretty much can't. For whatever good O'care may have done, it surely did not stop insurance companies from transferring ever more of the financial burden to patients, through copays and deductibles. All the hundreds of billions of insurance company profits are money that isn't paying for patient care. They are leeches adding no value and should be just a bad memory.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:50 PM on March 25, 2016 [12 favorites]


If you have insurance through your employer, you pretty much can't.

I don't understand this; you can, at least in my state. You simply decline the employer offer and you can go on the exchange market.
posted by Miko at 5:54 PM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


To spare the derail, I'll mention the disease and people can google the details themselves. It's PKU; the drug is Kuvan; and cheaper treatments exist (but are less adhered to because they entail lower quality of life.)

The drug exists because of the orphan drug act and the profit motive, and my kids will be eligible for insurance with their pre-existing condition one day only thanks to Obamacare, so I'm uniquely positioned to appreciate the advantages of our current Franken-system.

It's true that many in the US don't have access to Kuvan because of their insurance, but on the other hand almost everyone who does have access is in the US. I do support a public option. I am not anti-single-payer in principle but I am a little afraid of it, because rare diseases make small constituencies. Okay, back to the previously scheduled thread.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:56 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, Cruz, let's Ockham that thing. Five is not a small number--there's a good chance that there's some there there. It is not necessarily in Trump's interest, or Clinton's, to spend a lot of time talking about other people's marriages (but, y'know, Trumps gonna Trump). It is not on-brand for Kasich or Sanders. Trump-Cruz horserace coverage doesn't need it. Is it just going to quietly go away?
posted by box at 6:11 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Pretty juicy.
posted by Trochanter at 6:16 PM on March 25, 2016


The other benefit of the franken-system is that all those people who work at Doctors office doing billing and doing insurance claims actually have jobs right now. Yes the current system is inefficient and overly expensive but a transition to a single-payer system would effectively put a lot of people out of work.

So no it's not just millionaire CEOs of HMOs that would be negatively impacted it would be a ton of people that currently work in the medical industry. Long term it would be good to transition towards a single-payer system (possibly) but it doesn't come without human costs.

Furthermore it's completely impossible given the knuckleheads in charge of Congress which means instead of focusing so much money on an improbable attempt at beating Clinton for the nomination some of that money would be more effectively spent on down-ballot races. People can certainly keep funding Sanders but I'd love to see some of that fund-raising going towards winnable down-ballot progressives.
posted by vuron at 6:23 PM on March 25, 2016 [6 favorites]


In theory, single payer would put me and everyone who works with me out of work. I'm still all for it. I think I could land on my feet. They would need me in the new world order.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:35 PM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


So workers are only valuable if they work in industries you approve of?
posted by vuron at 6:35 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


Tell me the industry isn't hard at work at this moment exploring ways to ship those jobs to Bangladesh.
posted by Trochanter at 6:36 PM on March 25, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'm personally not too concerned about the job loss, but I think it's really unnecessarily hostile to find the concern "fucking dumb."
posted by zutalors! at 6:36 PM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm not saying that it's not a workable trade-off but let's not pretend that going to a single-payer system is some sort of instant pay-off. Like any change there would be winners and losers in the system. Furthermore we absolutely do not need to completely go to a single-payer system to achieve lower costs and universal coverage.

For me the end goals would be 1)Universal Coverage 2) Reducing Costs and a very distant 3) Dismantle the current healthcare system.

If we can achieve goals 1 and 2 without disrupting the system and causing significant job losses in the health care industry then I don't see why we absolutely need to push for single-payer as the only possible solution.
posted by vuron at 6:46 PM on March 25, 2016


If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, we should be adding paperwork and inefficiencies to all of our systems until we reach full employment, and then maybe even keep pushing until we eliminate anything paying less than meaningless paper shuffling. You could also accomplish this by just rolling back nearly all of the technological progress since the industrial revolution, which largely resulted in productivity increases that eliminated jobs through automation. Of course, the Amish can't post asinine opinions to the Internet, so you might want to hold back on that one.
posted by indubitable at 6:46 PM on March 25, 2016 [17 favorites]


Many of the countries with the best health outcomes, spending per person, # of visits, etc are NOT single payer (Germany, Japan, etc). Data to me looks like single payer is not the best option.

Look at Japan here: high usage, low spending per person, great outcomes. Germany also has good doctor/hospital:patient ratios, usage, etc.

Universal coverage with the mixed model seems like the clear winner. We just don't do it right in the US, it requires heavy regulation of all aspects of medical care and insurance. Which would be hard politically, but no harder than single payer.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:57 PM on March 25, 2016 [6 favorites]


German healthcare basically works like Obamacare without all the grandfathered-in parasitic Insurance Company crap. It wouldn't be a bad model to move to, but let's face it ANY model other than Americas would be better.
posted by Artw at 7:05 PM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


So if the best healthcare outcomes are found outside of single-payer why are we pursuing single-payer like it's the only outcome acceptable to progressives? I feel like holding out for a single-payer system that the left has never had the votes to enact in my lifetime ignores the fact that making incremental improvements can result in marked improvements to the quality of people's lives.

I know people that Obamacare has resulted in improvements to their overall quality of life. Obviously we need to improve outcomes so that health care is something everyone has access to because it improves a lot of things for society as a whole but I also understand that in a political system like ours that the perfect solution is rarely achievable.

Maybe Obama could've done a better job with his 4 months of 60 votes and pushed for a single-payer option but in retrospect there were never the votes for a single-payer option and pushing for it to the exclusion of everything else would've resulted in even less progress being made. I like progressive policy positions but if at the end of the day people's lives are improved like there were with Obamacare then I'm willing to accept that some people are going to make quite a bit of money maintaining a parasitic relationship with healthcare because fewer uninsured Americans is a net improvement over the previous status quo.
posted by vuron at 8:00 PM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


So if the best healthcare outcomes are found outside of single-payer why are we pursuing single-payer like it's the only outcome acceptable to progressives?

Because only one candidate is fighting for a version of universal health care, i.e., single-payer healthcare, and that candidate is Bernie Sanders.

Hillary has proposals as well, but (imo, and probably other progressives') they don't go nearly far enough, and some of the very big problems can only be addressed by universal health care i.e., single-payer.

For example, she wants to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, but doesn't say how. I believe a single-payer system allows the government the power to negotiate prices for affordability:
Reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Prescription drug spending accelerated from 2.5 percent in 2013 to 12.6 percent in 2014. It’s no wonder that almost three-quarters of Americans believe prescription drug costs are unreasonable. Hillary believes we need to demand lower drug costs for hardworking families and seniors.
posted by kyp at 8:24 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


Look at Japan here: high usage, low spending per person, great outcomes.

The populations are significantly different, though, with different needs. Let's take obesity, for example. Obesity in Japan is at 3.5% versus 35% here in the US. Obese adults spend 42 percent more on direct healthcare costs than adults who are a healthy weight. Estimates for medical costs for obesity in the US range from $147 billion to nearly $210 billion per year.

The US also has a higher rate of cancer -- Overall age adjusted cancer rates in the US are more than 50% higher than in Japan.

It's not apples to apples.
posted by mochapickle at 8:43 PM on March 25, 2016 [6 favorites]


Not to pick on Sanders supporters, but they don't like incrementalist domestic policy, but they seem to be okay with incrementalist foreign policy?

because the problem with our foreign policy is that we are too reckless and radical in response to imagined threats, while the problem with our domestic policy is that we have engaged in too many carefully designed half measures in the face of true crisis.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:44 PM on March 25, 2016 [14 favorites]


So if the best healthcare outcomes are found outside of single-payer why are we pursuing single-payer like it's the only outcome acceptable to progressives?

The Health Insurers burned through any "Good Will" they might have had when they let a child die so their CEO could get a new yacht.

Their time is over. We simply can't afford to subsidize them any longer.
posted by mikelieman at 11:26 PM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Health Insurers burned through any "Good Will" they might have had when they let a child die so their CEO could get a new yacht.

Did I miss a news story on this? I am confused as to what you are talking about?
posted by futz at 12:23 AM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]




That's AWESOME. Thanks for sharing that.
posted by teponaztli at 1:10 AM on March 26, 2016


I have great health insurance, and I am ground into the dust by copays. They eat 10% of my take-home pay every month, easily.

This is profit at the point of a gun, as far as I'm concerned.

Buy this, or die.

Buy this, or suffer horribly.

This shit is immoral to make a profit off of. But hey, humans gonna human. Humans are awful creatures, most of the time.
posted by megafauna at 1:13 AM on March 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


Buy this, or die.

Buy this, or suffer horribly.

This shit is immoral to make a profit off of.


If you believe that making a profit off of any essential goods or services is immoral, then yeah, I guess so. For me, it's the profiteering that's the problem, not the profiting.
posted by bardophile at 1:20 AM on March 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


That's AWESOME. Thanks for sharing that.

De nada. Es un placer , Que son Bienvenidos !!
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:42 AM on March 26, 2016


I am all about single-payer, but does Bernie have specific plans for implementation? Like how he plans on getting it by Congress, and how he will transition our current healthcare economy over to it?
posted by Anonymous at 1:49 AM on March 26, 2016


It may not be immoral to make a profit off of the essential needs of human beings, but it is impractical to allow "the market" alone to regulate that profit. The normal balancing processes of supply and demand do not work when the demand is effectively infinite. People will give everything they have and more to save their lives or the lives of their loved ones. So the health care industry can set prices as high as they like, and people will still pay. Hence, free market solutions don't work well for health care.

But there are solutions in between single payer and "free market." A highly regulated market can still incentivize innovation by allowing some profit, but cap those profits at reasonable levels. Obamacare took a step in this direction by capping insurance company profit and overhead combined at 20% of gross revenues. I think we probaly need similar caps for drug and medical device makers and for hospitals, though enforcing them is an administrative nightmare. Still, we already do this for defense contractors (most of which are on "cost plus" contracts) so it can be done.It has the virtue of leaving in place the profit motive as a reason the develop new treatments, which is one of the (few) advantages of the American system.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:11 AM on March 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


El Quemazon ( "The Bern" Corrido for Bernie Sanders) Grupo la Meta

That is great. Some quick googling turned up what looked like an official Obama campaign Norteño song, as well as plenty of corridos about every president at least from Reagan on, but other than Sanders and Obama I wasn't finding campaign songs. There must be more out there.

And of course no roundup of presidential songs is complete without Mighty Sparrow's "Doh Touch Me President" about Clinton's impeachment:
She came in a G-string
Monica started wining
and Bill have a weakness for dem tings.
If you see action, professional seduction,
he didn't know it was a trap they set for him.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:23 AM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Not to make more of a derail out of presidential pop songs, but I will take any opportunity to mention Cocoa Tea's Barack Obama song. In 2008 we threw a house party for election day and tracked the results in real time. As soon as Obama was declared the winner, I put that song on and everyone danced around, hugged each other, and some people cried. I've had my criticisms of Obama, but that was a great moment.
posted by teponaztli at 5:34 AM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am all about single-payer, but does Bernie have specific plans for implementation?

I do. Eliminate the age test for Medicare. Then take a percentage of the current average health insurance premium, and add it to the Medicare payroll tax. Most people would pay much less for that tax than they do now for insurance.



That is the fucking dumbest reason possible to keep it around.

Yes, it is. It has been used to argue for continuing to burn coal for power, for corn subsidies, and for all manner of other stupid things. Putting payday lenders out of business would also cost some jobs. So would prohibiting fracking, ending the War on Drugs, cutting Defense spending, and outlawing civilian ownership of assault weapons. "But, JOBS!" is a stupid reason to put forth for maintaining a parasitic industry.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:00 AM on March 26, 2016 [19 favorites]


So if the best healthcare outcomes are found outside of single-payer why are we pursuing single-payer like it's the only outcome acceptable to progressives?
I think because health care policy is really complicated, and most people don't really understand it. Most Americans equate "single payer" with "universal", when in fact most universal systems are not single-payer. If you asked most Americans if France, Japan or Germany had a single-payer system, they would say yes. And it's probably relevant that the places that do have single-payer systems are mostly English-speaking, so that's our model because we're more likely to consume Canadian, British or Australian media than French or German media.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:50 AM on March 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hmmm... maybe Americans aren't as dumb as I thought?

(Not making any assumptions yet, mind.)
posted by Artw at 7:49 AM on March 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, republicans a seeing that data too. The articles I've been reading the last few days are quoting more anonymous party officials as saying that if trump doesn't win 1237 delegates to win on the first ballot, that he won't win at all. Just as I had finally settled on wanting Clinton vs trump more than any other likely matchup.
posted by skewed at 8:02 AM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Related re Health care: "Just tell me the effing price."

I don't care how it's crafted or what it's called so long as every person is covered, deductibles and co-pays are minimal, and no one goes bankrupt trying to pay a medical bill. Oh, and that a large chunk of rent-seeking gets taken out of it, too.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:03 AM on March 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


Just as I had finally settled on wanting Clinton vs trump more than any other likely matchup.

I've got my fingers crossed for a Trump third party run SO EFFING HARD
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:53 AM on March 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


So if the best healthcare outcomes are found outside of single-payer

Assumes facts not in evidence.

The data that's been cited so far has only shown that single-payer is not the only way to achieve universality, not that the best healthcare outcomes are found outside of single-payer. The answer to the latter question is not by any means settled from the literature I've read, as it depends on how much one weighs various factors like equity, cost control, consumer satisfaction, mortality, and other variables that people tend to lump into the catch-all "best healthcare outcomes."

So why push for single payer? Well, I see it as more of a political question than a policy question. We already have basically every type of health system in our country depending on who the consumer is, and of the systems we have, the single-payer system is best-equipped to scale up to meet increased demand without having a detrimental impact on care. It's also a good place for Democrats to plant a flag for Overton window purposes, which is no small thing when Medicare is wildly popular and the opposition is voting to repeal the ACA every few days.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:07 AM on March 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


In election-adjacent news, it looks like the chances for Obama's Supreme Court nominee might be dead in the water after this severely damaging exposé was published in today's Chicago Tribune.

If you scrolled past this above without clicking on the link, I urge you to go back and read this expose. It contains CRUCIAL information every American MUST know about Merrick "cuts to the left" Garland.

(Best laugh I've had in a while.)
posted by sallybrown at 9:09 AM on March 26, 2016


I guess it would be possible to do single payer but also awful, I guess that would be the compromise position.
posted by Artw at 9:17 AM on March 26, 2016


¡Consiga de mi Césped! es Más Verde en el Otro Lado con Bernie
posted by y2karl at 9:35 AM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


3000 get!
posted by Trochanter at 9:38 AM on March 26, 2016


I know there are no protesters there, but just listening to the crowd at that Sanders rally with the bird, what great, positive energy is there.
posted by Trochanter at 10:04 AM on March 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just a reminder, the Washington, Hawaii, and Alaska caucuses are happening today.

WA's ended at 10am. Check out #WaCaucus for democracy.
posted by kyp at 10:55 AM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Lots of early precincts in WA reporting Hillary not reaching the 15% margin. Should be an interesting day.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:05 AM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Important to note that WA does not use the non-viability rule so the 15% cutoff doesn't apply, but looks like it will be a good day for Sanders anyhow.
posted by kyp at 11:10 AM on March 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh, thanks kyp. The more you know.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:11 AM on March 26, 2016


That Bernie & the bird video is really special. When you think about how grueling this campaign has been...it's no wonder he was so delighted by that little moment of surprise.
posted by sallybrown at 11:58 AM on March 26, 2016 [15 favorites]


cute cartoon on the bird
posted by jeffburdges at 12:51 PM on March 26, 2016




That seems... Kind of light?
posted by Artw at 1:11 PM on March 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Do we really need to discuss this? If the rumors are true, haven't those women suffered enough already?

If the rumors are true, it has huge implications for the Presidential election. The stories seem to be outside of the big mainstream outlets for whatever reason (NY Times / WSJ / CNN / etc).
posted by theorique at 1:36 PM on March 26, 2016


My gut says the Cruz story is true because it's not something anyone would make up - it doesn't fit his image, even the worst aspects of it. He's the last candidate you'd expect to be able to successfully talk someone into an affair, let alone multiple someones.
posted by sallybrown at 1:51 PM on March 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Big, big numbers for Sanders in Washington and Alaska. Good for him, and the bird for refusing to drop out.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:02 PM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


it doesn't fit his image, even the worst aspects of it

For me that fits into the strategy of attacking your opponent on their strengths, not on their weakness. Like how Bush (Rove, et al) attacked John Kerry for being an actual war hero, or how Bush rumored that McCain had an illegitimate mixed-race daughter when he is actually a stand-up guy for adopting a child from Bangladesh. Cruz comes across to republican voters as a straight shooter and pious family man (TrusTed, in his own words), so why not brand him as Lyin' Ted and make up rumors about horny Ted on the prowl to take away his biggest advantage over Trump?
posted by peeedro at 2:07 PM on March 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


Not a lot of coverage of the primaries today. Looks like Sanders will get something like 75% in all states?
posted by Justinian at 2:19 PM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's being covered as breathlessly as ever on CNN.
posted by zutalors! at 2:24 PM on March 26, 2016




In line for the caucus in Maui. It's a crazy high turnout and lots of new voters. All Bernie supporters near us.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:12 PM on March 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


horny Ted on the prowl

stop it i want to be able to eat dinner tonight
posted by indubitable at 4:38 PM on March 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


Drones 100% kill civilians. I don't think it's realistic to say that he'll do drone attacks and they'll be so much better than Obama's completely deadly drone attacks.

"Will I be Next?"
posted by homunculus at 4:44 PM on March 26, 2016


I feel like being a serial philanderer might actually be good for Cruz's image. It's not admirable behavior, but it's based on a recognizable human impulse to which most people can at least sort of relate. Plus, it suggests that he was able to find five people who could bear to be in his presence for long enough to sleep with him.

All joking aside, I think that five affairs would probably be a deal-breaker, but if it's just one, he could probably play the repentant sinner card and get away with it.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:57 PM on March 26, 2016


That would give the media an excuse to spend a cycle covering the serious issue that every voter needs to know more about: Hillary and Bill.
posted by peeedro at 5:18 PM on March 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


That's a cute bird but I think he was just eyeballing that water bottle.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:20 PM on March 26, 2016


nonsense, it was a clear sign that Zeus feels the Bern
posted by indubitable at 5:23 PM on March 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


Flagged as awesome for augury joke.
posted by teponaztli at 5:29 PM on March 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


That Bernie & the bird video is really special. When you think about how grueling this campaign has been...it's no wonder he was so delighted by that little moment of surprise.

Bernie generally comes across as a cranky old guy, and yes, it is lovely to see him take a moment now and then to have a little fun. My favourite of those moments so far, besides the Birdie Sanders moment, have been: him walking out onto Ellen DeGeneres's show doing a dorky little dance to "Disco Inferno"; seeing him cuddling a baby costumed as him (i.e., a messy white wig and glasses) and laughing; and watching him play basketball with his grandchildren backstage at a primary, because damn, he could sink those shots.
posted by orange swan at 5:44 PM on March 26, 2016


At least it wasn't haruspicy.
posted by Justinian at 5:45 PM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Finally voted after about 2.5 hrs in line. Would have been closer to 45 minutes but we had to register at our new address. All Bernie supporters from what I could tell. Everyone said it was the highest turnout they've ever seen.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:26 PM on March 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


melissasaurus, thanks for staying in line. I've never had to wait more than 10 minutes to vote, and it's wonderful that people respect their rights so much.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:45 PM on March 26, 2016


It was a beautiful day here and we were in the shade. Got to know a bunch of the people in line. Two people in front of us hit it off and are going on a date after. My back is sore from standing so long but other than that it wasn't a bad time at all. They were letting people jump to the front if they had to go to work or were older or disabled. There was a big grassy area where people had set up games for kids and Bernie supporters were handing out water and snacks.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:53 PM on March 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


Will Hawaii results be annouced tonight? I can't help thinking that if this was a republican caucus/primary that CNN and MSNBC would be breathlessly following every move that trump made instead of airing lockup raw and easter stuff.
posted by futz at 7:03 PM on March 26, 2016


I can't help thinking that if this was a republican caucus/primary that CNN and MSNBC would be breathlessly following every move that trump made instead of airing lockup raw and easter stuff.

Yeah no kidding. And CNN is saying "Washington and Alaska break for Sanders" as if he got 51% or something. How about "Landslide Victories for Sanders in Washington and Alaska"?
posted by HotToddy at 7:19 PM on March 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


I can't help thinking that if this was a republican caucus/primary that CNN and MSNBC would be breathlessly following every move that trump made instead of airing lockup raw and easter stuff.

I watched MSNBC for a few minutes tonight and got angry at how much they were relying on the "only white people vote for Bernie" rhetoric. Only 66% of Alaska is white, and 26% of Hawaii.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:31 PM on March 26, 2016 [13 favorites]


The CNN coverage today was infuriating but predictable. All but one guy were twisting themselves in knots to not praise or give Sanders any credit. The one dude called them on it and I whooped! Didn't matter though.
posted by futz at 7:32 PM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, people here were not happy about the "Hawaii is a white state" thing.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:33 PM on March 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


Also, if you are following #HIcaucus on twitter, there seem to be major Arizona-like issues of voters being turned away.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:34 PM on March 26, 2016


Isn't Hawaii the only state that has never been majority white?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:37 PM on March 26, 2016


via Wikipedia: Four states are majority-minority as of 2010: Hawaii (which is the only state that has never had a white majority), New Mexico, California, and Texas.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 PM on March 26, 2016


Anyone who thinks Hawaii is a white state clearly knows nothing about Hawaii. I do think that the racial politics of the state are extremely different than those of any place on the mainland, and stuff plays out very differently there.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:52 PM on March 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Why, it's almost like the establishment media is trying to shut down the outsider who is actually representing the American people and promising real change.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:26 PM on March 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Didn't watch MSNBC, but in my experience a lot of people use "white" to mean "nonblack," which is obviously pretty silly.

via Wikipedia: Four states are majority-minority as of 2010: Hawaii (which is the only state that has never had a white majority), New Mexico, California, and Texas.

The other three are all majority white. They aren't majority anglo, but majorities self-identify as white. It's like race and ethnicity are complicated.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:27 PM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


CNN and MSNBC carried Sanders victory rally, in its entirety, for like 2 hours today. They weren't burying anything it's just the night before Easter.
posted by Justinian at 8:33 PM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


almost like the establishment media is trying to shut down the outsider

We can only wish, but it doesn't look like Trump will be shut down so easily.
posted by FJT at 8:36 PM on March 26, 2016


I never said that they buried anything and I also never mentioned the rally. Perhaps you were responding to someone else? You didn't quote anyone in the thread so I am not sure what you are talking about?
posted by futz at 8:48 PM on March 26, 2016


entropicamericana's comment two above mine? About the media shutting down Sanders?
posted by Justinian at 8:57 PM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ah. I see. I agree with him though. Sanders is criminally under reported on compared to all of the candidates. He's been written off from the beginning. And now the pundits, who have gotten almost everything wrong this election cycle, are furthering their ineptitude by not acknowledging how far Sanders has come and how well he is doing. The main news outlets are very biased towards Hillary. That is just my opinion. ymmv.
posted by futz at 10:47 PM on March 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hawaii Democratic Party reporting that it will be at least another 30 minutes to an hour to release results.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:55 PM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thanks melissasaurus. What do you think the ratio's gonna be?
posted by kyp at 11:17 PM on March 26, 2016


People on Twitter are sharing this Google doc of unofficial results compiled from Instagram and Twitter and Facebook. It looks like 70-30 right now but a lot of precincts not reporting yet, including mine, which was at least 80% Bernie. The next precinct over from us went 90% Bernie.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:37 PM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders is criminally under reported on compared to all of the candidates.
-and-
The main news outlets are very biased towards Hillary

Are kind of two different things, right? There's a difference between the press not paying attention to someone and the press is being bias towards or "likes" a candidate, right?

I personally think the amount of reporting on Clinton is about right, but I'm not sure if the media actually likes her, especially during that period last summer which was almost an negative headline every couple of days.

But I do agree Sanders is being under reported, but I think if anything that's Donald Trump's fault. He's getting much much more coverage than anybody else. And yes, a lot of its negative, but I think his supporters just see that as him being an authentic outsider.
posted by FJT at 11:43 PM on March 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


but I think if anything that's Donald Trump's fault. He's getting much much more coverage than anybody else. And yes, a lot of its negative, but I think his supporters just see that as him being an authentic outsider.

Yeah. Always reminds me of: Get Your War On - Dominating the News Cycle!.
posted by Justinian at 12:36 AM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Congrats! Sanders has won three for three, taking Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington by over 40 percent margins in all three states.

In other words, you could say the voters...

(puts on sunglasses)

...spent a Weekend at Bernie's.
posted by FJT at 1:03 AM on March 27, 2016 [12 favorites]


Berninating the countryside
posted by XMLicious at 1:35 AM on March 27, 2016 [9 favorites]


It's been what, six hours since the last breathless "Clinton! Is worse than Hitler! Everybody loves Bernie!" report, so I have to agree the media has been a bit lax recently in their support for Sanders.
posted by happyroach at 2:30 AM on March 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


I am going to be blunt. The corporate news media in the United States just plain sucks(This includes PBS and NPR) . If it functioned reasonably well. Trump would not have even made it out of the starting gate.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:44 AM on March 27, 2016 [11 favorites]


Sanders has definitely been frozen out of news coverage but I find it hard to believe that it's because the media's biased toward Clinton. They've hated her for decades now. I think it's just that they've spent 90% of their time salivating over the latest naughty thing that Trump has said and really aren't interested in or even qualified to talk about the social and economic issues that Sanders is saying. Why talk about boring stuff like wealth inequality when you can talk about Donald's penis?
posted by octothorpe at 5:31 AM on March 27, 2016 [14 favorites]


This guy Stephen Miller, Trump advisor, is screaming about immigrants murdering people on CNN. He's terrifying.
posted by zutalors! at 6:35 AM on March 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


if we want a progressive candidate who calls himself a socialist, refuses to muckrake, and only concentrates on the issues, that's something we're going to have to do without mainstream media support. we can't have anything even approaching revolutionary with support from abc, cnn, and proctor&gamble. the mainstream media reporting the complete clown of a front runner and the establishment front runner isn't very surprising. there's also the issue that for all of bernie's gains and the great job he's done with relatively little background in a campaign of this size, he's always been behind and even with his massive wins yesterday, he's still going to be where he's been the whole time - second place.

i wish we had a more fair and balanced national news outlet, but bernie isn't some special case that the media is ignoring - they're just going on with business as usual.
posted by nadawi at 8:26 AM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


> he's still going to be where he's been the whole time ...

♪♫ Somewhere, Overton rainbow... ♬♪
posted by Quagkapi at 9:02 AM on March 27, 2016 [9 favorites]


This guy Stephen Miller, Trump advisor, is screaming about immigrants murdering people on CNN. He's terrifying.

CNN Panel Goes Off the Rails After Trump Advisor Rips ‘Feigned’ Anti-Trump Outrage

That guy is a raving moron.
posted by homunculus at 10:24 AM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Happy Easter, from...

- Bernie.
- Hillary.
- Ted.
- John.
- Donald.
posted by Wordshore at 11:03 AM on March 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump's is so inclusive.
posted by Trochanter at 11:18 AM on March 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


That easter tweet from Trump is from last year, which I guess goes to show that he's consistent.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 11:26 AM on March 27, 2016




Hillary and Women
posted by CincyBlues at 1:30 PM on March 27, 2016


Here is Trump's Easter greeting for 2016. Meanwhile, The Donald had no public appearances for a few days and will remain only active on Twitter until the eve of the next primaries (while sending a couple surrogates to rant at the media) but did anybody notice a downturn in press coverage?

That's one credible thing about Not MeFi's Own Scott Adams' assessment that "Donald Trump will win in a landslide" (not a link to Adams' own site); Trump is benefiting from an ability to play The Media like a fiddle... or a banjo, whatever. Of course, Adams' conclusion: "Trump is well on his way to owning the identities of American, Alpha Males, and Women Who Like Alpha Males. Clinton is well on her way to owning the identities of angry women, beta males, immigrants, and disenfranchised minorities. If this were poker, which hand looks stronger to you for a national election?" This just shows his ignorance of American demographics and/or ineptitude at math. If this were 5-card-stud, Trump is playing with 3 cards, at most. Meanwhile Adams has introduced a new character in the Dilbert comic named "Dick from the Internet". I'm pleasantly surprised he finally included someone based on himself.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:42 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Speaking of candidates' wives... Uh oh. "The Internet Responds Badly"... well, look how 'The Internet' responds to the Pope on Twitter. This is why I'm shutting down my mostly dormant Twitter account today.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:48 PM on March 27, 2016


From Hillary and Women: Horrid though it is that men have criticized Clinton’s figure and voice and called her “Hellary” and declared themselves repulsed at the idea of her going to the toilet—none of these things are very good or grown-up motives for electing her to the highest office in the land. It would be a fine thing to have a woman in the White House. But, really—let’s not put her there because someone once said she had “cankles.”

Wow, what a weird article. The author seems to sum up this sentiment, "several of the women who have declared their intention to vote for her in this election have cited their empathy with her sufferings, their understanding of what it is to be slighted and mocked and undervalued by a male-dominated system, as part of what has clinched their decisions," as electing Hillary because 'someone' 'once' said she had ankles. What?

Also the part where she blamed Obama for the decline in fortunes of African-Americans.

Also when first she points out that several of Henwood's anecdotes about Clinton seem catty and unreliable, but then seamlessly affirms that "his book is, for the most part, a solid and persuasive guide to what has been characterized as shady or shabby or unprincipled in Clinton’s political career."
posted by Salamandrous at 2:09 PM on March 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Speaking of candidates' wives... Uh oh.

I feel like this is one of those things where if Clinton did something similar it would be taken as evidence of her being terrible but it will be shrugged off here.
posted by Justinian at 2:12 PM on March 27, 2016




A Trump Administration would be America run through Google's Deep Dream. (and a disturbing nummber of people would say "now THAT's making America great again!")
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:24 PM on March 27, 2016


Bernie brusquely telling his wife "don't stand next to me" at the rally last night, yeah, that's not a good look.
posted by msalt at 2:57 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


well, he did -- immediately prior -- almost smack her in the face when he raised his hands, so, it was probably good advice.
posted by mikelieman at 3:08 PM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie brusquely telling his wife "don't stand next to me" at the rally last night, yeah, that's not a good look.

Please look up facts. NCRM published an inaccurate and unfair story today, and we apologize.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:20 PM on March 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


Following a link on Google titled "Bernie Sanders Snubs His Wife" led me to a retraction and an apology. How refreshing.
posted by homunculus at 3:20 PM on March 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


Jinx!
posted by homunculus at 3:21 PM on March 27, 2016 [2 favorites]




That is how you do an apology. It really went above and beyond what they needed to say.
posted by futz at 3:28 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


What I appreciate about the apology was not just that he said the story was wrong, but that it shouldn't have been considered newsworthy in the first place.
posted by teponaztli at 3:30 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


I feel like this is one of those things where if Clinton did something similar it would be taken as evidence of her being terrible
If Hillary told Bill to 'get away from me' while on stage, it would notably IMPROVE my image of her.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:31 PM on March 27, 2016 [12 favorites]


Yup. I am very impressed.
posted by futz at 3:32 PM on March 27, 2016


it shouldn't have been considered newsworthy in the first place.
Neither should have "the Dean Scream" in '04.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:38 PM on March 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


Please look up facts. NCRM published an inaccurate and unfair story today, and we apologize.

Please click my links before lecturing me, inaccurately. I have no idea who NCRM is and it has nothing to do with my comment about this incident. I linked the simple video of him being rude to his wife which is a fact.

Whether or not some web site I've never heard wrote a bad blogpost about it doesn't change anything. Frankly, it seems like a fairly disingenuous way to justify his behavior.
posted by msalt at 3:42 PM on March 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wow! Looks like Bernie can get a bit snippy sometimes. Something, I speculate, the majority of us do from time to time.
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:52 PM on March 27, 2016


If You Care About Electing Women, Don’t Focus Only on Hillary
I would add that if you care about economic justice, you shouldn't focus only on Bernie. In fact, if you care about pretty much anything, you should not just be paying attention to the presidential race. Also, you shouldn't just be voting during presidential election years, but that's a theme we'll have to revisit after the election.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:01 PM on March 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


msalt, I just watched the video you linked, and I don't have any interest in lecturing you, but I'd be curious to know why you think it's relevant to the discussion.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 4:08 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]



Wow! Looks like Bernie can get a bit snippy sometimes. Something, I speculate, the majority of us do from time to time.


See, in all serious, I wish people on both sides of this stupid primary would take this to heart. But it seems everyone is only interested in excusing their personal fave and writing off everything done by the opponent as evidence of a deep personality flaw.

This election season can't end soon enough.
posted by Salieri at 4:09 PM on March 27, 2016 [16 favorites]


Sanders had a good night yesterday!

C'mon Bernie, don't be so loud and snippy, smile more! :)

(kidding!)
posted by FJT at 4:20 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


See, in all serious, I wish people on both sides of this stupid primary would take this to heart. But it seems everyone is only interested in excusing their personal fave and writing off everything done by the opponent as evidence of a deep personality flaw.

This election season can't end soon enough.


I agree for the most part. But if Bernie did this regularly I would seriously question my support of him. Some behaviors are forgivable in moderation, others begin to look like significant character weaknesses if repeated more than several times.

I can't wait for this election cycle to be over as well.
posted by yertledaturtle at 4:24 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd be curious to know why you think it's relevant to the discussion.

We're evaluating job candidates for the most powerful position in the world. I think that their character is a very valuable piece of the puzzle. Bernie has a roughness to his character IMHO, which is reflected in the fact that after 26 years in Congress only 2 of 535 members endorsed him. Obviously, the president needs the cooperation of Congress to get anything done, including even getting his or her picks on the Supreme Court.

Here's a situation where Bernie has everything going well. He just won 3 states, people are cheering, everybody's happy, and he's inexplicably rude to his supportive wife of 30 years in a very public situation. It's embarrassing to her and not a good sign of character.

You know how people say "On a first date, a guy will be on his best behavior, but watch how he treats the wait staff to get a better read of his temperament?" This is like that but even more so.
posted by msalt at 4:24 PM on March 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


On preview, yertledaturtle wrote:
I agree for the most part. But if Bernie did this regularly I would seriously question my support of him. Some behaviors are forgivable in moderation others begin to look like significant character weaknesses if repeated more than several times.

Yes, that's totally fair. If this is one off, no big deal. It does reinforce my worry that Trump will easily get under his skin in debates though.
posted by msalt at 4:26 PM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Some behaviors are forgivable in moderation, others begin to look like significant character weaknesses if repeated more than several times.

Yeah, I hear you on that. I guess I can modify my comment to say something like...I wish the discussion around Bernie/Hillary (and I'm talking everywhere, not just here) was a bit more more - I don't know, phlegmatic, maybe? Like, it's okay to take something like this and say, "Yeah, not a great moment in my opinion, but not the end of the world either," and stop there. I promise, no one will question your enthusiasm or progressive bona fides. (General "you", of course.)

Instead, every little moment of personal weakness by these candidates seems to require one of two responses: 1) "OMG this is exactly why she/he is the woooooorst and is completely unsuited for higher office." 2) "She/he absolutely did nothing wrong and this is all being blown out proportion by the hostile media and those awful Bernie/Hillary supporters." And nothing in the middle. I can predict who exactly will say what after these long-ass threads.

It's okay to admit that your favorite candidate may have occasionally made a mistake or misspoke or been snippy or whatever, and still end up supporting them. And if you feel like that's a deal-breaker as far as voting for them...well, we all make our own judgments about this stuff all the time. But at this point it seems like the well is truly poisoned in terms of giving others the benefit of the doubt. It would be nice to see less reflexive excusing and blaming.
posted by Salieri at 4:44 PM on March 27, 2016 [11 favorites]


Bernie's pretty much widely known as a jerk. I don't really care if the President is someone I'd want to have a beer with, but it's pretty much a fact that he's not a nice guy. This behavior isn't at all surprising to me.
posted by zutalors! at 4:47 PM on March 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


It is interesting that Bernie is so often described as a jerk or curt, at least on MetaF, yet he genuinely seems to care about people, fairness, the planet, etc.

It was jarring to hear what a grouch he is given the causes that he has dedicated his life to. Does anyone have a link to a profile of him that discusses this?
posted by futz at 4:58 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Into the final 226 days until the election now, folks.
posted by Wordshore at 5:04 PM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Here's one link. I also heard it from people who worked with him in the Senate.

I mean, I think he wants to get some good things done, but he's not a nice guy about it. I get the idea he just doesn't like the day to day crap. Like someone who would take a food pill rather than have a meal because it just gets in the way of his work.
posted by zutalors! at 5:04 PM on March 27, 2016


Does anyone have a link to a profile of him that discusses this?

Here are a couple from reasonably credible sources:


Bernie Sanders Is Cold As Ice (Boston magazine)

Former campaign staffers say Bernie Sanders was abusive: "Bernie was an asshole" (Democratic Underground - actually not sure what that is)
posted by msalt at 5:09 PM on March 27, 2016


Bernie's pretty much widely known as a jerk.

I did a quick google search and a few items showed up (on preview: the same ones as msalt ) but not enough for me to come to the conclusion that he is widely known as a jerk. I can do the same search with Clinton and get similar results.
posted by yertledaturtle at 5:15 PM on March 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Agreed and this is kind of a derail.
posted by futz at 5:18 PM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


a derail that I started. sorry!
posted by futz at 5:19 PM on March 27, 2016


After over 3000 comments, is there even a rail anymore?
posted by Salieri at 5:20 PM on March 27, 2016 [11 favorites]


Bernie's pretty much widely known as a jerk.

From hearsay from people working on the Hill, he's known as a jerk. Anyway, it doesn't mean he wouldn't be a good President or whatever.

Hillary is mostly known as a pretty nice person to work with and for.

To me it's interesting because they have the opposite public perception. It's not some kind of slander. I'm never going to meet or work for the guy, most likely, so he can jerk all he wants.
posted by zutalors! at 5:23 PM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


The only thing that concerns me about Bernie's temperament is that if he ends up in the general against Trump, he'll easily get riled up by Trump's ridiculous behavior, and I'm not sure that ends up being a good look.
posted by mmoncur at 5:37 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


We can't know that though. And I feel that Bernie will be so issue focused that he won't fall for T's antics. And if he does so what? We are dealing with a world class bully with T. It wouldn't change my opinion of Bernie at all if he unleashed on T.
posted by futz at 5:44 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have personally been snapped at by Bernie Sanders! I had an interesting job working for a lefty organization, which gave me great insight into the ways that lefty dudes are sometimes real assholes to the admin assistant. Bernie Sanders was a jerk, but he was definitely not the most egregious jerk. If I ever come to a meetup, ask me for details and I will happily name names. But yeah, I don't think it really matters. There are some horrifying right-wing politicians who have a reputation for being interpersonally lovely, and I don't think you should vote for someone just because they're nice, either. It does bug me a bit that Hillary has a reputation for being "unlikeable," when Bernie is actually someone who you probably want to avoid dealing with in person.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:46 PM on March 27, 2016 [10 favorites]


I can't believe this is even a thing. Did anyone listen to that speech? It went on FOREVER. So basically what you have here is he was about to launch into a big long hand-waving speech, almost clocked his wife in the face, and told her not to stand right behind him. A little brusque, yeah. I work with my husband in a high-stress environment where shit needs to get done stat and this is how we talk. Probably sounds bad to outsiders but we know what we mean, and I'm sure they do, too.
posted by HotToddy at 5:46 PM on March 27, 2016 [11 favorites]


Bernie Sanders Is Cold As Ice

He's willing to sacrifice his love. He never takes advice. Someday he'll pay the price, I know.
posted by dirigibleman at 5:51 PM on March 27, 2016 [19 favorites]


It seems like it's been difficult to even get Bernie riled up enough so that he'll impatiently interrupt someone. Not for lack of trying, though.
posted by XMLicious at 5:53 PM on March 27, 2016


Seriously, I don't think it's appropriate to criticize Sanders' personality if we can't go after Hillary's. Please stop.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:12 PM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


It does bug me a bit that Hillary has a reputation for being "unlikeable," when Bernie is actually someone who you probably want to avoid dealing with in person.

Misogyny, it's what's for dinner.
posted by Justinian at 6:13 PM on March 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think it's appropriate to discuss any candidate's personality.
posted by zutalors! at 6:14 PM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


But people go after Clinton's personality all the time? Like.... constantly.
posted by Justinian at 6:14 PM on March 27, 2016 [10 favorites]


I don't think anyone's said "please stop" about criticisms of Clinton. But anytime there's anything negative about Bernie, it's inappropriate suddenly.
posted by zutalors! at 6:15 PM on March 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


OK, let's talk about Clinton's personality, too. That sounds fun.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:18 PM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


The last few comments are why I called this a derail. I knew this would happen.
posted by futz at 6:21 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Heh, and I was the one who just talked about the Usual Suspects jumping in in exactly the same way, and here I am still participating. I should really close this tab already.
posted by Salieri at 6:23 PM on March 27, 2016


If people criticize Hillary it is automatically misogyny but if you criticize Bernie that's just the truth of who he is?

...........okayyyyyy.
posted by futz at 6:24 PM on March 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


No, it is clearly the misandry that has caused men to have such a very tough time rising to positions of power in our society.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:25 PM on March 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think people talk about her personality as a character flaw, whereas with Bernie he can be grouchy but still effective. I do think there is sexism in that. I also do think they have opposite personas to what people who are often around them say.
posted by zutalors! at 6:26 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


...but he was so nice to that little bird!

If you go back through videos of Bernie's campaign events with his wife present, you'll see either (a) prior incidents of her getting in his way which he also handled brusquely (but nobody noticed), (b) prior incidents of her getting in his way which he handled better (and if there were many, this could've been a 'getting on my last nerve' situation) or (c) her being previously more careful to stay out of his way, because, yeah she knows. It would be interesting to research, but again, NOT RELEVANT TO MUCH OF ANYTHING. Yes, Bernie is going to come across as an Old Grouch (and the most notable older American Politician who DIDN'T was Ronald Reagan, and we don't want more of that), and there is plenty of evidence that he was a Grouch long before he was Old. (Any resemblance to Sesame Street's Oscar is... semi-obvious)

Hillary is in that unique and unenviable situation of having been the Wife of a Politician (like Mrs. Sanders) before she was a Politician. So first, she's going to get the ugly double standard of every woman politician, but also the Former First Lady treatment of "if she's not as gracious as Jackie Kennedy was, she's a bitch". And if she ever goes anywhere near "smiling political wife" mode, it'll come across as both insincere and lacking gravitas. So she's damned if she do and damned if she don't. With her specific history (and all that we know about it), there may not be a way she can avoid "looking bad" in many people's eyes. But still the one thing I have against Hillary that IS TOTALLY NOT HER FAULT is that I so wish that American's First Woman President didn't have "Wife of the President" as her first major political job.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:27 PM on March 27, 2016


I know zulators!

You have said that repeatedly.
posted by futz at 6:28 PM on March 27, 2016


Yeah, so picking on other posters is maybe a "please stop" situation.
posted by zutalors! at 6:29 PM on March 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


But still the one thing I have against Hillary that IS TOTALLY NOT HER FAULT is that I so wish that American's First Woman President didn't have "Wife of the President" as her first major political job.

She did choose to marry him? And I assume she had a say in what offices he ran for.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:29 PM on March 27, 2016


I'm just saying that it's not her fault but that of our deeply flawed society that there was noone ahead of her with a different history. And how many people are now saying "Michele Obama should run for something"? Argh.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:33 PM on March 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Michelle has gotten so much crap for...her campaigns for healthy eating and community gardens like "you'll pry my Oreos out of my cold dead hands!" 'Merica, I don't get us.
posted by zutalors! at 6:52 PM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]




Seeing as how we're coming to the end of 8 years with a very charismatic president, the demeanor of the candidates is very much one of the attributes that guide my assessment of what kind of president they would be. Obama in Tuscon, Newtown and Charlotte is as much a measure of his success as a president as his policies.
posted by billyfleetwood at 7:17 PM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Wish I could favorite this twice, Salieri. Perfectly stated.
posted by sallybrown at 7:24 PM on March 27, 2016


There is a hashtag on twitter now about corporate media erasing the diversity of Sanders supporters through the only white states support Bernie narrative.

#BernieMadeMeWhite
posted by yertledaturtle at 7:31 PM on March 27, 2016 [11 favorites]


What we really need as a candidate is one of them riding around on the other one's shoulders so that orneriness and winning personality can be deployed as needed, whoever has which characteristic. Master Blaster rules Democrat-town!

Maybe one day science will allow the convention to become a simple medical procedure in which all the candidates left standing are merged into a single political super-being.
posted by XMLicious at 7:43 PM on March 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is the dude that started the hashtag. Since people are now saying that white liberals started it.

https://twitter.com/tokyovampires
posted by yertledaturtle at 7:51 PM on March 27, 2016


Yeah, I like that hashtag. The whole Bernie Bro narrative is definitely frustrating. It's made it a whole lot harder to talk about the election when there's this impression of a monolithic bloc of supporters. It ends up downplaying or erasing a lot of individual perspectives.
posted by teponaztli at 8:11 PM on March 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Huh! That Carl Beijer article got me playing around with the polling data on Reuters.com with current data, since it was a from couple of weeks ago. It's pretty interesting, and paints a different picture from most of the coverage and discussion that I've seen! Here's a link to average/overall data from polls over the last month, with a number of filters you can apply on the bottom. Filtering by race of the respondent, we can see the following splits (using the Reuters category labels):
  • White: Sanders 40.9%, Clinton 36.2%
  • Black: Clinton 59.0%, Sanders 27.9%
  • Asian: Clinton 40.0%, Sanders 35.0%
  • Native American, Alaska Native, Aleutian: Sanders 50.0%, Clinton 28.0%
  • Hispanic: Sanders 51.0%, Clinton 38.0%
  • Other Race: Sanders 50.0%, Clinton 27.0%
This surprised me for a few reasons. First, from the way people have been talking, I wouldn't have expected the split in the black vote to be 60/28. For instance, after the various southern primaries that Hillary won with around 70-80% of the vote, the common narrative was that black voters made the difference and pushed her over the top. So I imagined her support among black voters would have been overwhelming, like 90/10 or more, to overcome the much closer white voter split to arrive at those totals. (And this is based on the monthly average - the daily graph makes it clear that the gap is closing over time - e.g. 54/32 in today's rolling 5-day avg, 51/40 two days ago)

Second, all the talk about Sanders's inability to win minority votes overshadows the fact that he's within spitting distance of MOE of a tie among Asian voters, and winning a majority of voters in the other minority demographics that Reuters breaks out. (I'm especially surprised I haven't heard more about his lead among Hispanic voters, given their significant strength in the electorate of many key western states)

I know many in the thread dismissed dialetheia's posts about the erasure of Sanders supporters of color in coverage of the primaries, but the numbers certainly do seem to be at odds with the dominant narrative.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 8:27 PM on March 27, 2016 [19 favorites]


Thank you c_h_t.

I also hope that dialethia comes back to join the conversation.
posted by futz at 8:33 PM on March 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


Oops dialetheia.
posted by futz at 8:38 PM on March 27, 2016


I know many in the thread dismissed dialetheia's posts about the erasure of Sanders supporters of color in coverage of the primaries, but the numbers certainly do seem to be at odds with the dominant narrative.

I don't think I dismissed dialetheia's posts about the diversity of Sanders support (I know a few Sanders' supporters from different backgrounds), but I do recall that there were some arguments that Hillary Clinton's support shouldn't be counted because she was only winning due to African-American votes in the South, ones that weaker for a Democratic candidate in the general election. Or even recently, where people keep dismissing sexism against Hillary as if it's only limited towards saying she has cankles and not something that possibly might affect her support.
posted by FJT at 8:48 PM on March 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yes, I don't think "dismissed" is the right word. There also have been several think pieces about minorities tired of white people Bernsplaining with the pie charts.

Minorities are a land of contrast and some will feel erased by being Sanders supporters and some will feel condescended to by Sanders supporters. Also yes, the discounting of the South by the Sanders campaign is insulting.

That doesn't mean that Sanders doesn't have minority support. It is true that if he had more of it he'd be further along.
posted by zutalors! at 8:56 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


I do recall that there were some arguments that Hillary Clinton's support shouldn't be counted because she was only winning due to African-American votes in the South, ones that weaker for a Democratic candidate in the general election

I've certainly seen some people say that her performance in southern red states shouldn't be given such importance because those states are unlikely to go Dem in the general election, and personally I don't agree with that sentiment. I grew up in Alabama and know a lot of left-leaning people who are still there, and there's a pretty gross tendency in a lot of places (including repeatedly on the Blue) to be like, well fuck them, it's the South, they deserve what they can get. The same way that people argue that even if Sanders doesn't win the primary, the votes in his favor should signal to the Democratic candidate which issues are important to certain demographics (e.g. the young, the poor), I believe that even if southeastern states don't go blue, their primary votes should signal to party and the eventual candidate (and President, god willing) which issues are important to the people living there. Those people are going through the same kinds of problems as Democratic voters everywhere else, and deserve vigorous advocacy as well. (Many probably have it worse than those in primarily blue states, like minorities, LGBTQ individuals, atheists, etc. who are living among people are openly hostile to them in large numbers)

I can't recall having seen ANYONE argue that Clinton's victories in the South should matter less because of her support among black voters. And that definitely isn't the point that dialetheia tried to make several times about erasure--which I'm not saying you personally dismissed--but anyone can scroll up in this thread and see how it was received at the time.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:05 PM on March 27, 2016 [8 favorites]


It is true that if he had more of it he'd be further along.
This is true for voters in general. The issue is that CNN, in particular, keeps reporting that most of Bernie's supporters are white. This is a narrative that continues to be repeated and it is overly narrow and constrictive and it perpetuates an inaccurate perception of one of the candidates supporters.
posted by yertledaturtle at 9:08 PM on March 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


So I imagined her support among black voters would have been overwhelming, like 90/10 or more, to overcome the much closer white voter split to arrive at those totals.

You're looking at all adults; you want to be looking at likely Democratic primary voters. Black support there is 72/26 Clinton. But once you get down to black likely primary voters, you don't have enough respondents per week to do the time series.

all the talk about Sanders's inability to win minority votes overshadows the fact that he's within spitting distance of MOE of a tie among Asian voters

I think a lot of this gets mixed up by people either being lazy or not wanting to write "black" and they already used African-American so they end up using "minority" to mean "black" in the same way that other settings would use "urban" to mean "black." Which is of course dumb.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:16 PM on March 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


She did choose to marry him? And I assume she had a say in what offices he ran for.
"I don't want to marry this person. Their political aspirations align too closely with my own. "
"I don't think you should run for President because I want to do that later."

Those don't seem particularly believable. Especially if you rewind to 40-odd and 20-odd years ago, respectively.
posted by bardophile at 9:20 PM on March 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


Especially if you rewind to 40-odd and 20-odd years ago, respectively.

Pure speculation.
posted by futz at 9:29 PM on March 27, 2016


You're looking at all adults; you want to be looking at likely Democratic primary voters. Black support there is 72/26 Clinton.

Ah, thanks for this. I didn't scroll far enough down the Political tab to see that option, but those numbers are definitely closer to what I would have expected.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:32 PM on March 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


And that definitely isn't the point that dialetheia tried to make several times about erasure--which I'm not saying you personally dismissed--but anyone can scroll up in this thread and see how it was received at the time.

I was a part of this discussion, and I believe the reception was "Yes, we know that Bernie has minority support, we are not denying that." I pointed out the differences between the demographics supporting each candidate and the problematic behavior of some Sanders supporters. Discussing facts is not the same as pretending the man has no minority support.
posted by Anonymous at 10:22 PM on March 27, 2016


I know many in the thread dismissed dialetheia's posts about the erasure of Sanders supporters of color in coverage of the primaries, but the numbers certainly do seem to be at odds with the dominant narrative.

Erasing people and their votes stinks, but that's how you win elections these days.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:18 PM on March 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was a part of this discussion, and I believe the reception was "Yes, we know that Bernie has minority support, we are not denying that." ... Discussing facts is not the same as pretending the man has no minority support.

I agree, which is why I mentioned the facts. Dialetheia posted about strong support for Sanders among many minority voters including Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans, and others, where she mentioned that friends of hers of color were "pissed off at being erased so much in the media coverage and commetary." You responded that "Nobody is saying Bernie has no POC fans. But as a demographic whole, Clinton is leading among POC." Which is reductive, as the poll results show - Clinton is leading among black voters and has a slight edge among Asian voters, and Sanders is leading among Hispanic, Native American/Alaska Native/Aleutian voters, and Other voters (presumably including Arab Americans, especially given the results in areas like Dearborn). These are the same groups dialetheia mentioned in her post about minority supporters feeling erased. I never said anyone claimed that Sanders had no minority support, only that the facts appeared to support her point about erasure.

I've been hearing statements like "Clinton is leading among POC" a lot, both in media coverage and in discussions. Because of that, I wanted to share the Reuters polling, which I had not expected. That's all
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 11:39 PM on March 27, 2016 [11 favorites]




Speaking of Native Americans, I'm pleasantly surprised that Senator Sanders has been consistently stumping for Native Americans in the last few rallies (i.e., Arizona, Oregon, Washington). I'm cautiously optimistic that he will, as he claims, fundamentally change the relationship of the United States government with Native Americans, and the platform that he outlines in the video sounds promising.

Endorsements by the Native American community: Clinton has her own endorsements and outreach as well, so ultimately I hope both candidates continue to make campaign promises and that they'll follow through.
posted by kyp at 12:25 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


You can't use tracking polls for that kind of demographic analysis; it's not what they are for and not what they are good at. I mean, just look at the the Hispanic number. If Sanders were leading Clinton by 50-38 with Hispanics we would have seen that in the voting in places like Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and Florida. But, for example, Clinton won the Hispanic vote in Texas by a margin of around 71 to 29. And in Florida it was 68-32. Those are huge blocks of votes and are completely inconsistent with Sanders being ahead 50-38 among that demographic.

Tracking polls are used to look at trends and momentum, you can't break them down to fine-grained detail.
posted by Justinian at 1:27 AM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]




Oy vey.

Nobody is denying that there are Bernie supporters of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. What is true is that he hasn't done well among black and Latino voters or in states where black and Latino voters make up a big part of the Democratic electorate. Alaska and Hawaii both have a lot of non-white voters, but they're kind of demographic outliers in that they're among the only states in which there are a lot of non-white voters but not a lot of black and Latino voters. (They're also pretty tiny. There are 750,000 residents of Alaska, making it the 47th most populous state. Hawaii is number 40 with about 1,400,000 people. Compare that to some of the diverse states that Hillary has won, such as Florida with 19,500,000 people or Texas with 26,500,000.) In order to win the nomination, Bernie would need to win states where there are a lot of black and Latino voters, such as New York and California. Winning Alaska and Hawaii may be a good talking point for Bernie's supporters who are upset about being characterized as white, but it isn't going to help with his fundamental problem.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:30 AM on March 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


Again with this argument? Clinton's fundamental problems of being unlikable and having no support outside the establishment are going to be much worse.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:44 AM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's a different form of erasure for white people to quote other white people quoting some flattering demographic polls, and ignoring some real issues minorities have brought up wrt Sanders' minority support.
posted by zutalors! at 5:49 AM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Again with this argument? Clinton's fundamental problems of being unlikable and having no support outside the establishment are going to be much worse.

You say this like she isn't... you know... winning. In delegates, primary popular vote, and GE matchups against every Republican.

You may not like her, but clearly enough people do that it's odd to insist she's "fundamentally unlikable" when, behold all the people who like her and showed up to vote about it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:59 AM on March 28, 2016 [16 favorites]


Her "unlikable" rating is in the 50s, close to Trump's. I mean, yes, she will probably win, but let's not pretend she's Obama.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:09 AM on March 28, 2016


Mod note: Comment deleted. Drop the personal insults.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:12 AM on March 28, 2016


Her "unlikable" rating is in the 50s, close to Trump's. I mean, yes, she will probably win, but let's not pretend she's Obama.

Trump is at 63 and has a net of -32.

Clinton is at 54 and has a net of -13.

Obama is at 46 and has a net of -1.

Clinton may not be Obama, but she's closer to him than she is to Trump, so let's not pretend she's Trump either.
posted by Etrigan at 6:25 AM on March 28, 2016 [9 favorites]


Hillary has been winning despite the old, tired media narrative about her being unlikable. But I guess I'm a little perplexed about why Bernie's supporters are so confident that he won't get his very own unfair, stupid negative media narrative if he gets the nomination. Right now, the worst thing that people are saying about him is that he's grouchy. But you think the Republican attack machine won't start in on unhinged, fanatical, un-American? You think there won't be television ads asking whether a man who applied to be a conscientious objector is fit to be commander in chief of the US military? (Has anyone even asked him about that? My understanding is that his conscientious objector petition was rejected and then he aged out of draft age without his number coming up, but the fact that he petitioned is going to be an issue for some people.) It's true that every person in America has heard very negative things about Hillary, but I wonder what Bernie's negatives would look like once the real claws came out about him.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:26 AM on March 28, 2016 [11 favorites]


Nobody is unaware the other party is going to try and destroy the nominee. It happens literally every single election in both directions. If Trump and his multiple deferments wants to go there, the campaign will handle it.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:41 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Here's a lot of info on the email thing:

WaPo: How Clinton’s email scandal took root
posted by Trochanter at 6:43 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


In early March, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell delivered a memo with the subject line “Use of Blackberries in Mahogany Row.”

“Our review reaffirms our belief that the vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries in the Mahogany Row [redacted] considerably outweigh the convenience their use can add,” the memo said.

He emphasized: “Any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving e-mails, and exploiting calendars.”

-
Security remained a constant concern. On June 28, 2011, in response to reports that Gmail accounts of government workers had been targeted by “online adversaries,” a note went out over Clinton’s name urging department employees to “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.”

But she herself ignored the warning and continued using her BlackBerry and the basement server.


I have no idea if what she did was illegal, but she sure as shit knew it was a dangerously insecure way to communicate.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:05 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


i'm still trying to work out why the nsa wouldn't give her the secure device she asked for from go...
posted by nadawi at 7:14 AM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


The NSA refused to give Clinton a device similar to the one used by Obama: a modified BlackBerry 8830 World Edition with additional cryptography installed. And while Clinton's predecessor Condaleeza Rice had obtained waivers for herself and her staff to use BlackBerry devices, Clinton's staff was told that "use [of the BlackBerry] expanded to an unmanageable number of users from a security perspective, so those waivers were phased out and BlackBerry use was not allowed in her Suite," an e-mail from the NSA's senior liaison to the State Department noted.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:20 AM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Remember that golden time when Bernie said "I don't care about the emails" and we all thought it meant he was going to run a clean campaign that didn't start playing into ridiculous Republican conspiracy theories?

That was a good time.
posted by Anonymous at 7:30 AM on March 28, 2016


Let's start talking about Benghazi now. Or Watergate! Or all the people the Clintons have had killed!
posted by Anonymous at 7:31 AM on March 28, 2016


I must have missed when the Sanders campaign started attacking Clinton on the emails or Benghazi, schroedinger. Can you back these claims up?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:33 AM on March 28, 2016 [9 favorites]


His supporters have. I imagine it's a matter of time for him, given he's abandoned the pretense of being issues-oriented.
posted by Anonymous at 7:36 AM on March 28, 2016


Let's start talking about Benghazi now. Or Watergate! Or all the people the Clintons have had killed!

She sent out a warning under her own name not to do what she was doing. I guess she's a crazy conspiracy theorist too, right?
posted by Drinky Die at 7:40 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest
I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.
posted by Anonymous at 7:43 AM on March 28, 2016


I imagine it's a matter of time for him, given he's abandoned the pretense of being issues-oriented.

Pointing out the differences between yourself and your opponent on the issues is not abandoning the pretense of being issues-oriented.
posted by Etrigan at 7:48 AM on March 28, 2016 [12 favorites]


I have no idea if what she did was illegal, but she sure as shit knew it was a dangerously insecure way to communicate.

Dangerous. What does that word mean in this context? No regular email account is approved for transmission of classified information. It doesn't matter whether it is a .GOV account or a .COM account. Neither Clinton nor anybody else in government is approved to use a .GOV or .COM account for classified information. All of them transmit thousands of emails a day on these unsecured accounts. Classified information is handled either on paper or on a special classified network operated from a special secured room. Whether or not Clinton used a .COM account for non-classified, routine communications is irrelevant.
posted by JackFlash at 7:55 AM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Dangerous. What does that word mean in this context?

Vulnerable to cyberattack.

“Your phone or BlackBerry could have been tagged, tracked, monitored and exploited between your disembarking the airplane and reaching the taxi stand at the airport,” Brenner said. “And when you emailed back home, some or all of the malware may have migrated to your home server. This is not hypothetical.”

posted by Drinky Die at 8:01 AM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: Couple comments removed, cool it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:08 AM on March 28, 2016


Vulnerable to cyberattack.

So what? All email is subject to cyber attack. Everyone knows this. Even I know this which is why I never transmit sensitive information by email. In government everyone knows that their .GOV accounts are not secured and not approved for classified information.
posted by JackFlash at 8:10 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well hopefully someone will ask all those people in the intelligence community and at state, including Hillary herself, why they described using personal email in this way as a security risk I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by Drinky Die at 8:12 AM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


His supporters have. I imagine it's a matter of time for him, given he's abandoned the pretense of being issues-oriented.
"'Now let me say a few words about some of the strong differences of opinion that I have with Secretary Clinton,' he now normally begins one portion of his speeches before hitting her on a litany of issues. The go-to critiques include trade, the Iraq War, and Clinton's use of Super PACs."
Shocking!
"'I proudly stood with the workers! Secretary Clinton stood with the big money interests!' Sanders enunciated in Youngstown, Ohio on Monday when illustrating Clinton's support for trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)."
Incredible!
"Either way, one thing is clear: his fans are reveling in his ramped up criticisms.

Jelena Mihajlovic, a 17-year-old high school student from Westmont, Illinois who intends to participate in the state's primary Tuesday as she will be 18 by general election day, said she believes Sanders needs to call Clinton out as often as possible.

"He needs to point out some of her flaws. He's doing his job because he needs to make sure that we see what we need to see," she said."
Simply unconscionable!
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:16 AM on March 28, 2016 [8 favorites]


Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

It's more that her constituency has never been me, but rather the people who pay her 200 grand for an hour of her time. I just don't believe an ex-Board member of Walmart will ever advocate for a living wage.
posted by mikelieman at 8:18 AM on March 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


why they described using personal email in this way as a security risk I guess.

Using email is a security risk, period. Everyone knows that email is a security risk so they are not permitted to use it for classified information.
posted by JackFlash at 8:18 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


So the real investigation should be about why they were sending out the totally pointless security warnings about doing government business via personal email accounts?
posted by Drinky Die at 8:24 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


It will never cease to surprise me how often the convenience of email as a medium trumps logic and reason and all kinds of training and warnings about when not to put something in writing or send it by email. If you ever have the experience of doing doc review of a cross section of a company/organization's email...people (all kinds of people, at all levels of the org) are incredibly dumb about what they put in emails. And that's their work email!

I may be misremembering this, but I recall when Obama first took office he Had to insist on that super-protected Blackberry - at first he was told it just wouldn't work. He wouldn't accept no for an answer on that one. I'm kind of surprised similar accommodations weren't made for Hillary. (Although, never underestimate the federal government's slowness to adapt to technology.)
posted by sallybrown at 8:26 AM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


as a queer southern woman who wants to remain childfree, i feel hillary clinton represents a great many of my interests. i don't recall her ever giving me $200k and i'm not aware of being invited to any establishment meetings...
posted by nadawi at 8:27 AM on March 28, 2016 [9 favorites]


as a queer southern woman who wants to remain childfree, i feel hillary clinton represents a great many of my interests.

If you look at her actual platform, both the Green party and Bernie Sanders may represent your interests more. I'm a queer person (from New York) as well and don't feel that Clinton's understanding of our community is very good.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:32 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.


This article, on the other hand, strikes me as pretty close to the truth -- that Sec. Clinton is not so much corrupt (in the quid-pro-quo, envelopes-of-cash sense), but that she is somewhat anti-transparency and inclined to secrecy. I don't really like that at all, but on the other hand one person's "excessive secrecy" is another person's "tight ship". And certainly she has reason to distrust the media.

But I wouldn't go so far as to call Sec. Clinton trustworthy. Fundamentally honest she may be, in the sense that she's not purposefully lying -- but the point is that a lot of people, including conservatives, moderates and liberals -- do not feel that they are able to trust that she won't do or say whatever is politically expedient at the time.

To go back to the "Reagan started a national conversation on AIDS", thing, that's a pretty good example of this. The best explanation I saw was that Sec. Clinton got kind of carried away by the felt need to say nice things about Nancy Reagan, etc. I think someone here mentioned the perception that she wants to say whatever the people in the room want to hear. Which is great politicking, and in some ways it's natural and genuine -- but it's also indicative of a lack of some core principles that I think any progressive-minded politician needs to have.

Let me put it another way. What can one not imagine Sec. Clinton trading away or compromising on? I think there is probably a set of non-negotiables for her but I can't figure much of what would be on it.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:34 AM on March 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


i don't recall her ever giving me $200k and i'm not aware of being invited to any establishment meetings...

and it's never going to happen, either - good luck with that
posted by pyramid termite at 8:36 AM on March 28, 2016


If you look at her actual platform, both the Green party and Bernie Sanders may represent your interests more.
...
and it's never going to happen, either - good luck with that


i voted for bernie sanders in my state primary. i don't expect her to give me some sort of pay off and that's a weird charge. i expect she'll win the nomination and the presidency (where i will be glad to vote for her) and i think she's a much better alternative than anyone else who is likely to win the presidency this go around (which unfortunately does not include bernie sanders). people can support hillary clinton, see her faults, and not be part of some bought off establishment.
posted by nadawi at 8:44 AM on March 28, 2016 [15 favorites]


i just can't work up any enthusiasm about her, especially after reading robert frank's book yesterday

we just don't have a place at the table
posted by pyramid termite at 8:48 AM on March 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think as it looks likely that Sanders won't endorse her, that it will be very difficult for her to GOTV.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:49 AM on March 28, 2016


as it looks likely that Sanders won't endorse her,

If he did not, he would drop very sharply in my estimation. There is a great deal at stake, and he knows this. He would have the opportunity to show to his voters the same pragmatic political calculus that brought him this far and encourage them to remain engaged in the process. For him not to do it, it seems to me, would be shooting himself, not to mention his own stated principles and practice, and the country in the foot. No, the gut.
posted by Miko at 8:52 AM on March 28, 2016 [26 favorites]


There is a great deal at stake, and he knows this.

He also knows that she is very likely to beat Donald Trump and may not need his endorsement. By withholding it, he doesn't do a lot of harm to her, but he keeps his integrity in the minds of a lot of new and young voters who are eager to turn the party around in 2020, if they can't do it now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:56 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


By withholding it, he doesn't do a lot of harm to her

Many Sanders voters who wouldn't bother voting for Clinton because he didn't endorse her are just going to stay home and not bother voting downticket for senate, house etc races too. He may not harm her by declining to endorse, but he would definitely do harm.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:58 AM on March 28, 2016 [12 favorites]


He can do down ballot get out the vote stuff without backing Hillary.
posted by Trochanter at 9:01 AM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


By withholding it, he doesn't do a lot of harm to her, but he keeps his integrity

Exactly as prize bull octorok says. Digging in on integrity is not worth much if it means he encourages followers to disengage from the political process. That would actually be the opposite of his own philosophy and could have a long-term harmful effect on voter attitudes, especially voters who are already inclined toward less collaborative political attitudes.

He can do get out the vote stuff without backing Hillary.

It would be interesting to see him trying to walk that line. I don't think it'd be an easy message at all, and he's going to be pressed on it.
posted by Miko at 9:02 AM on March 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sanders is going to endorse. Apologies, but this is a silly hypothetical.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:04 AM on March 28, 2016 [15 favorites]


To go back to the "Reagan started a national conversation on AIDS", thing, that's a pretty good example of this

It's odd that when she says something bad it's suddenly a character issue, but when Sanders says "when you are white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto", it just means he misspoke but he means well. And he wasn't speaking at a funeral.

For me, this election has been eye opening at how much 20-plus years of attacks are still paying dividends.
posted by FJT at 9:04 AM on March 28, 2016 [12 favorites]


Sanders is going to endorse. Apologies, but this is a silly hypothetical.

Agreed. But of course he should stonewall on the question until the Dem race is over.
posted by Trochanter at 9:09 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]



Voting for the Presidency is a huge draw, and a large part of why turnout is higher in presidential elections relative to midterms. If he can get people to the polls and get them to vote for down-ticket races while at the same time implicitly telling them to not vote for the Presidency -- if he's not endorsing Clinton, I presume he's not endorsing anyone? -- I will be both surprised and impressed, and I will be wondering why he wasn't doing that in 2014 or 2012 or earlier.


Yeah, this would be so bizarre. He'd be telling people to vote for Congress but not put in a vote for the Presidency, or to vote Republican? Or write someone in? It doesn't make any sense.
posted by zutalors! at 9:13 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders is going to endorse. Apologies, but this is a silly hypothetical.

Since his most recent stance is that he won't until she agrees to his conditions, I'm going to go with listening to him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:13 AM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


But, I do think the divides between him and Hillary are more real than they've been between most (any?) Democratic Party opponents in forever.
posted by Trochanter at 9:14 AM on March 28, 2016


I think as it looks likely that Sanders won't endorse her, that it will be very difficult for her to GOTV.

He also knows that she is very likely to beat Donald Trump and may not need his endorsement. By withholding it, he doesn't do a lot of harm to her


these views seem contradictory.
posted by nadawi at 9:15 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Voter turnout is routinely 20 percentage points higher in presidential elections. I don't see Sanders running the math and saying "Yeah, it'll be more efficient for me to talk to that 36 percent of people who always vote, and to talk to them one district/state at a time, rather than just endorsing Clinton and getting a lot of that 20 percent to vote for better downticket candidates."
posted by Etrigan at 9:16 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mod note: Couple more things nixed. Folks, I'm basically out of patience with the "yeah but you wrong-candidate supporters are blah blah blah" shit at this point. It's okay to be passionate about the political process and about your preferred candidate, but some of the expressions of that that have been continually cropping up on MetaFilter are making discussions on political topics a lot shittier than they need to be.

If you find yourself wanting to comment not about the details of the race or policy stuff external to MeFi but about how and why you're convinced other people in the thread or on the site are explicitly or by association bad/wrong/crappy/etc, just give it a pass and go do something else.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:17 AM on March 28, 2016 [25 favorites]


Since his most recent stance is that he won't until she agrees to his conditions, I'm going to go with listening to him.

It's not as cut and dried as you're implying. They're basically only separated by one issue.
posted by zarq at 9:18 AM on March 28, 2016


They're basically only separated by one issue.

That happens to be the issue that Clinton goes after Sanders most often on.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:20 AM on March 28, 2016


Since his most recent stance is that he won't until she agrees to his conditions, I'm going to go with listening to him.

I think he's taking a negotiating stance, something he clearly knows how to do given how many amendments he's passed. He's won about 45% of the pledged delegates, and will likely creep up to closer 50% before the end which means he should get a voice in the direction of the party. Asking for the winner to make concessions to virtually half of the party seems perfectly legitimate. That interview on Young Turks where he made these claims sounded to me less like a hardline position than one that was set up in order to gain some progressive concessions from Clinton that will last beyond the primary race. I dunno. If Sanders doesn't give even a halfhearted endorsement of Clinton if/when she wins, I won't eat my hat, but I will be deeply, deeply disappointed and feel basically betrayed by him. Even if she stonewalls on giving him any concessions, I expect to hear a "Clinton and I have had our differences, and we still do, but she remains the best chance we have to beat Donald Trump and keep this country away from total disaster" kind of endorsement, but not a "Hillary Clinton is the best candidate ever, I love her, it turns out she's really a progressive, pro-labor candidate and not really on the board of Wal-Mart, it's cool that she's totally bffs with Kissinger and Blankfein, we're best buds now" kind of endorsement.
posted by dis_integration at 9:25 AM on March 28, 2016 [14 favorites]


That happens to be the issue that Clinton goes after Sanders most often on.

So? All politics is negotiation.
posted by zarq at 9:26 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


zarq, if Clinton all of the sudden says she will lobby for single-payer healthcare, fine.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:27 AM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Um, quite a lot, actually. You are really projecting your personal feelings about Clinton onto your judgement of her policy positions. But that's not new, because it has been par for the course for this entire thread.

I'm not, actually. I'm just not sure what, after 20 years in the public eye, Sec. Clinton is actually prepared to stand up for even if it's politically incorrect. Equal pay, I think, and reproductive rights. LGBTQ rights, sure. Maybe race relations but neither of them are awesome on that front, in my view.

But the wars? Financial reform? Campaign finance? Health care? Wait, strike that last one, we already know that she threw single-payer under the bus for no reason. So there's an issue where Sec. Clinton was way out in front 25 years ago, had a slightly more progressive plan than Obama did 8 years ago, and today is calling single-payer unrealistic. That's not the arc I'd like to see.

On the other hand Sen. Sanders has done more to open up room on the left in five months than Sec. Clinton has in 15 years of public office. Rather than triangulating to the center, he consistently has tried to pull the conversation leftward. That gives Sec. Clinton more room to maneuver as well -- if it weren't for his being in the race, she'd be already feeling the need to triangulate toward, shudder, Donald Trump (not particularly because of who she is, I hasten to add, but because that's just how election politics works).
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:34 AM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think people are going to remember how hard Clinton campaigned for Obama after he won the nomination. It'll be really offputting and damaging for Sanders to just spin away after the election.

I know people are really excited about some of the off brand things happening on the Dem side this year, as they should be, but politics is still politics and most people familiar with the process from past elections will want to see the Dems come together.

I just can't believe what little faith people have in Hillary to go against Trump, even if you hate her. Obama hasn't even come into play yet. He's not going to sit this one out.
posted by zutalors! at 9:35 AM on March 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


Sanders is going to endorse.

I don't know, I'm actually concerned he's gonna try an independent run. To Sanders perspective, his base of support is as much from independents as it is from Democratic party base. And he still has money and can conceivably continually raise money for the long term. And the only reason he's joined the Democrats was to get national exposure. He's gotten that, so he has no reason to endorse or stay in the party.

And even if Trump wins, it doesn't affect him. I would even go as far to say a President Trump might help him, as he could use his new following and safe Senate seat to oppose Trump and still bring even more attention to issues about Wall Street and inequality.
posted by FJT at 9:36 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clinton has never said she won't "lobby for" single payer health care, exactly. She's just said it's pointless to send bills to Congress about it, because it has zero percent chance of passing in the next four to eight years.

Though I think it's not her preferred approach to universal healthcare, I believe she'd support it if it had a chance. Because she supports universal healthcare, and how it is achieved is less important.

That's the thing. I think if Bernie were to talk about "universal" health care instead of "single payer" health care, he'd get the concession. Clinton has always been in favor of universal health care. I still don't understand why Bernie is so fixated on the means instead of the end. If Barack Obama had insisted on single payer healthcare from the beginning... We'd still have the old system, and people with pre-existing conditions or no employer provided insurance would still suffering, eight years later.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:36 AM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


And even if Trump wins, it doesn't affect him.

Aside from being put in a labor camp, sure.
posted by beerperson at 9:39 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't know, I'm actually concerned he's gonna try an independent run.

He's ruled this out, quite categorically. I trust him on this one. I don't think he's shown much sign of breaking these sorts of promises.
posted by dis_integration at 9:39 AM on March 28, 2016 [8 favorites]


I don't know, I'm actually concerned he's gonna try an independent run. To Sanders perspective, his base of support is as much from independents as it is from Democratic party base. And he still has money and can conceivably continually raise money for the long term. And the only reason he's joined the Democrats was to get national exposure. He's gotten that, so he has no reason to endorse or stay in the party.

And even if Trump wins, it doesn't affect him. I would even go as far to say a President Trump might help him, as he could use his new following and safe Senate seat to oppose Trump and still bring even more attention to issues about Wall Street and inequality.


This is complete hogwash. He's been very clear that he wouldn't run as a spoiler. And furthermore, the backlash against him and against left-wing politics generally would be orders of magnitude greater than the Nader 2000 thing.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:41 AM on March 28, 2016 [11 favorites]


I don't know, I'm actually concerned he's gonna try an independent run.

If he were to do that (and I don't think he would) I would lose every iota of respect I have for the man. At that point, he might as well start giving speeches wearing Joker makeup.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:41 AM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


She's just said it's pointless to send bills to Congress about it, because it has zero percent chance of passing in the next four to eight years.

On that basis, then, no one with a sane, pragmatic mindset should vote for her. On the basis of what has a chance of passing, there's very little she could do with a Republican-controlled Congress, if she were elected — healthcare or otherwise.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:43 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


zarq, if Clinton all of the sudden says she will lobby for single-payer healthcare, fine.

I think all engaged voters have at least one or two issues that they are not willing to compromise on. Mine are abortion rights, civil rights and anti-discrimination laws.

But your insistence that she absolutely must give in 100% to every one of his demands or he won't possibly endorse her flies in the face of both his career and common sense. They will negotiate terms. He will endorse her. It would be deeply short-sighted, and perhaps even damaging to the Progressive movement to do otherwise. His passion and ideals would force him to make sure his supporters didn't quit the entire process.

You spoke of him keeping his integrity earlier. This is probably Senator Sanders' last Presidential election. He's no doubt considered how much of the work he and his supporters have done over the last year would go to waste if he counseled them to stay home on election day.

In politics, change only rarely happens instantly. Revolutions don't just magically happen. They require time and effort and persistence. And they also require support. His base needs to work to elect progressive candidates who agree with their vision. Sanders has quite literally spent his entire career fighting to incrementally change the status quo. Unless I've deeply misjudged him, telling his supporters to give up because someone hasn't been completely won over would be totally out of character. He could not help to see that act for what it would be: counterproductive.
posted by zarq at 9:45 AM on March 28, 2016 [11 favorites]


But your insistence that she absolutely must give in 100% to every one of his demands or he won't possibly endorse her flies in the face of both his career and common sense.

Not my insistence. Right now, it's his.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:46 AM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


On that basis, then, no one with a sane, pragmatic mindset should vote for her. On the basis of what has a chance of passing, there's very little she could do with a Republican-controlled Congress, if she were elected — healthcare or otherwise.

Maybe not, but there's a lot she could stop them from doing.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:47 AM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't know, I'm actually concerned he's gonna try an independent run.

Not in a million fucking years.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:50 AM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think if Bernie were to talk about "universal" health care instead of "single payer" health care, he'd get the concession. Clinton has always been in favor of universal health care. I still don't understand why Bernie is so fixated on the means instead of the end.

I think you can scan up in this thread and others on the election to see why. I am personally not a member of the SP cargo cult and think there's a lot of good ways to get total coverage. But I think you have to be on the edge of willfully ignorant on the matter to be a politician and not get why folks in 2016 are skeptical about universal or total coverage. There's a lot of folks who are finding themselves pinched by the current methods of requiring them to procure coverage as a way of getting to universal coverage.

The folks energized by Sanders have a vision of everyone just having coverage, period, done, the same way they (well, should anyway) just have access to water and emergent care. They don't see a plan that demands they purchase coverage and navigate a sometimes complicated subsidy system as a concession.

My feelings about the world and politics are pretty nuanced and, though I am a Sanders supporter, I am willing to accept a lot of flaws and complications in what I view as accessible progress. But people on the knife's edge with regards to coverage or who are trying to get to a real sea change in health care coverage... to them the means can be pretty important.
posted by phearlez at 9:50 AM on March 28, 2016 [8 favorites]


On that basis, then, no one with a sane, pragmatic mindset should vote for her. On the basis of what has a chance of passing, there's very little she could do with a Republican-controlled Congress, if she were elected — healthcare or otherwise.

There are all kinds of things that the President can do which have nothing to do with Congress. Just as one example, Clinton's healthcare plan involves working at the state level, in states where the Medicare expansion was voted down, to heavily promote the benefits of such an expansion to both voters and state-level representatives. If that plan was even partially successful, it would help insure millions of new people, without the need to pass anything through Congress.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:53 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Good news! Georgia Governor just vetoed the "religious liberty bill".
posted by futz at 9:55 AM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


Maybe not, but there's a lot she could stop them from doing.

I expect Sanders to be much more aggressive than Clinton with the Veto. I don't buy any claim that Clinton will be better able to "get things done" than Obama or Sanders, so long as the Republicans are complete obstructionists. Clinton's great model, I think, is LBJ, who got things done because he spent his political career developing a tangled and corrupt web of leverage mostly within his own party, leverage he wielded to push the unreconstructed Democratic south to agree to things it had been obstructing for the past half century. I think Clinton has developed a similar web of leverage, and similarly, within her own party. That's not very helpful in the present day. I really don't know what would give any Democratic president the power to overcome the Republicans, except getting them to lose their majorities in the senate, house and in the state governments. I think Sanders has a better chance than Clinton at mobilizing people to vote in downballot elections, because of his support among independents.
posted by dis_integration at 9:55 AM on March 28, 2016 [7 favorites]




They don't see a plan that demands they purchase coverage and navigate a sometimes complicated subsidy system as a concession.

I feel like this is basically the same objection that Republicans have to taxes. "How dare you require me to pay health insurance premiums" and "how dare you require me to pay taxes" are basically the same argument, to me.

Of course, if you can't afford health insurance premiums or taxes, you shouldn't have to pay them. That's why Obamacare did have subsidies, and more importantly lifted the income ceiling for Medicaid (which would have covered a hell of a lot more people, but for the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that states didn't have to comply). That's why Obama originally wanted to include a public option, which would have been simpler than working with the government for subsidies plus private insurers...

Those are things that could conceivably be implemented with relatively minor changes in the political winds. You don't need a revolution to make those fixes. And that would actually get us damn close to universal coverage. And yeah, there'd be insurance middlemen taking a (strictly controlled) piece of the pie instead of the whole thing going through the IRS, but you know? The middle class is basically made of middlemen. It's not the worst thing in the world. Insurance company or IRS, there's going to be some bureaucracy involved.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:57 AM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


On that basis, then, no one with a sane, pragmatic mindset should vote for her. On the basis of what has a chance of passing, there's very little she could do with a Republican-controlled Congress, if she were elected — healthcare or otherwise.

Sure, if they were sane, pragmatic, and had zero understanding of how our government works. I mean, do you honestly believe that there is literally no difference between her and Trump/Cruz/Kasich? Because that's what you're implying here.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:57 AM on March 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


Or they could be discussing the primaries....
posted by Trochanter at 10:00 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton senior strategist Joel Benenson suggests no more debates unless Sanders' tone improves.

Benenson claims Sanders has been running attack ads. Is that true? Being in a late primary state, I haven't seen a single ad. Looking around on the internet, I can't find a single attack ad. Are they out there? I'd like to see them.
posted by dis_integration at 10:07 AM on March 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


Maybe not, but there's a lot she could stop them from doing.

Every president has veto power.

Sanders has better odds of beating Trump in the general election. He has a long record of getting things done as a legislator. As with any President, he, too, would have the option to veto bad legislation.

Clinton would have a much more difficult time against Trump. She has good fundraising skills, which is valuable for running for office, but would not be able to get many things done, if she was elected, because odds are that Congress will remain in control by the GOP, which has stated time and time again that they won't work with her.

Just as one example, Clinton's healthcare plan involves working at the state level, in states where the Medicare expansion was voted down, to heavily promote the benefits of such an expansion to both voters and state-level representatives.

State governments trend even more conservative than the federal level. I don't see her having any easier a time working with most states.

Voting for someone who has a record for getting work done that aligns with progressive and liberal goals, and who can strike down bad laws, seems a better option than to vote for someone who can just exercise veto power. There is a lot of work to be done to fix real problems with healthcare, stagnant wages, cost of living, climate change, etc. etc., and not much time to waste while rich people bicker.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:08 AM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


It is SO FUCKING WEIRD that people continuously harp on Clinton for triangulation or negotiating or not standing firmly on hardline principles while also arguing that those who prefer her as a candidate should instead vote Sanders because he stands a better chance vs. Trump in the general.
posted by beerperson at 10:16 AM on March 28, 2016 [9 favorites]


Obviously we don't want someone to just exercise veto power. That was just a flippant response to the silly statement that electing Hillary Clinton and sending single payer health care bills to Congress would be equally futile in the face of Republican intransigence.

Any Democrat will have to deal with that intransigence. Any Democrat will still presumably be able to accomplish some part of his or her agenda along with exercising veto power. It's just that single payer health care is not going to be one of those accomplishments, in the near term. (Because most Americans don't want it. Even if maybe they "should".)
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:17 AM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sanders has better odds of beating Trump in the general election.

That's probably mainly for the fact that he's not a woman. Also, I think Trump accusing him of disrupting his rallies has shown that Sanders isn't impervious against his attacks.
posted by FJT at 10:17 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's probably mainly for the fact that he's not a woman.

Maybe don't do this.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:18 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton senior strategist Joel Benenson suggests no more debates unless Sanders' tone improves.

I can't even with this.


Another own goal. Incontheevable!
posted by Trochanter at 10:18 AM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton senior strategist Joel Benenson suggests no more debates unless Sanders' tone improves.

I can't believe they are actually using a tone argument against Sanders, but much about their campaign so far has been relatively tone-deaf. So it goes.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:18 AM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]




Yes, Sanders would be more aggressive with the veto and pardons. Importantly, I suspect Sanders might replace the USTR with people who do not support bullshit like ISDS, and maybe IP laws.

There is little chance of Clinton replacing Obama USTR and no chance she'll stop the push for ISDS or insane IP laws. It's irrelevant otoh if Clinton supports single-payer as even the staggering left-wing voter turnout to vote against Trump or Cruz will not flip the House or Senate to the Democratic control. And Republicans will continue their obstructionism against either "That socialist" or "Her".

That's really the point : Sanders has actual reasons to use presidential power to help people. It's possible Clinton might veto more crap or pardon more people than Obama, but far less than Sanders and her appointments will be much more in industry's pocket, and do much less to fix real problems with trade, etc.

As an aside, It's clear that Sanders will endorse Clinton after she wins the nomination, but delaying both now, and maybe after the nomination, pulls her stated positions leftward. Also, I hope Sanders endorses many real left-wing candidates at the congressional and state level before endorsing Clinton, as that'll focus attention on them. And encourage his strongest supporters to work for their campaigns instead of Clinton's campaign.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:22 AM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


obama has faced an obstructionist congress and has still gotten a lot done. besides, a gop congress would obstruct sanders just as much, if not more (if he follows his campaign platforms). the republicans being assholes who won't do their jobs is a pretty uncompelling argument for who the democratc party wants as its candidate. it is a super compelling reason why democrat voting americans all over the nation should show up for all the elections and not just the big flashy one, but that seems to be a hard sell.
posted by nadawi at 10:23 AM on March 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


It is SO FUCKING WEIRD that people continuously harp on Clinton for triangulation or negotiating or not standing firmly on hardline principles while also arguing that those who prefer her as a candidate should instead vote Sanders because he stands a better chance vs. Trump in the general.

Why is it weird? The only way I see any tension between these two principles is if you assume that standing a better chance against Trump requires him moving to the center, and that's not at all a given. Sanders has a large lead over Trump in the general election polling matchup based on his current campaign, not any based on any hypothetical move to the center. There's nothing inconsistent about believing that Hillary compromises too much but that Sanders would be better able to defeat Trump.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:25 AM on March 28, 2016 [8 favorites]


Clinton senior strategist Joel Benenson suggests no more debates unless Sanders' tone improves.

The way scheduling was done, it is clear that the DNC didn't even want debates in the first place: why should there have been any options to choose from?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:26 AM on March 28, 2016


Sanders is confident he will get a supermajority of Democrats in Congress.
posted by zutalors! at 10:26 AM on March 28, 2016


It's just that single payer health care is not going to be one of those accomplishments, in the near term. (Because most Americans don't want it. Even if maybe they "should".)

Actually, that's not quite true. The reason we don't have a single payer health care system isn't because the American people don't want it, it's because of the inordinate influence of the health insurance industry on policy.
posted by Backslash at 10:26 AM on March 28, 2016 [8 favorites]


Why is it weird?

It is the idea that Clinton Is Bad because of her pragmatism and also that you personally should vote pragmatically or You Are Bad.
posted by beerperson at 10:27 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


It is the idea that Clinton Is Bad because of her pragmatism and also that you personally should vote pragmatically or You Are Bad.

I didn't read a lungful of dragon's comment as a moral imperative for everyone to vote Sanders or be a Bad Person, I read it as merely a list of his potential advantages over Hillary were he to be the nominee.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:35 AM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


I didn't read a lungful of dragon's comment as a moral imperative for everyone to vote Sanders or be a Bad Person, I read it as merely a list of his potential advantages over Hillary were he to be the nominee.

He literally implied that unless people vote for Sanders they are insane and impractical.

And not for nothing, but the mods have explicitly said, DON'T DO THAT on more than one occasion.
posted by zarq at 10:39 AM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


Shit, how about Clinton just come out for a Public Option. Let people choose to join Medicare instead of wasting money on the overhead of a health insurer?
posted by mikelieman at 10:41 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


And not for nothing, but the mods have explicitly said, DON'T DO THAT on more than one occasion.

Also not for nothing, digging in on endless arguments about whether or not someone else is doing That Thing also ends up feeding into the dynamic of That Thing and people's apparent mutual inability to just fucking move on is half the reason we're as fried about this shit as we are. "Cut it out" is not "...unless you think someone else is doing a bad job in which case GO FOR IT" and I really, really wish folks would make a more consistent effort in general here to just roll eyes and move on quietly with the non-But-They-Started aspects of the discussion.
posted by cortex at 10:45 AM on March 28, 2016 [14 favorites]


Shit, how about Clinton just come out for a Public Option?

She has!
Continue to support a “public option”—and work to build on the Affordable Care Act to make it possible. As she did in her 2008 campaign health plan, and consistently since then, Hillary supports a “public option” to reduce costs and broaden the choices of insurance coverage for every American. To make immediate progress toward that goal, Hillary will work with interested governors, using current flexibility under the Affordable Care Act, to empower states to establish a public option choice.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:46 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]




Shoot, screwed up the "She has" link. Originally went to this story and then I tried to edit to point directly to her site.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:50 AM on March 28, 2016


It's clear Sanders will reform the USTR much more than Clinton. It's fairly clear Sanders will pardon more people and veto more bad legislation. It's clear Sanders will appoint less hawkish military leaders. These are the president's actual powers, nadawi, so Sanders will use them much more aggressively.

Is there any evidence that Clinton can negotiate better with a Republican congress than Sanders? I think not for various reasons, but I never said that.

I actually said : It's wisest to assume neither can pass any legislation at all. Instead, we should mostly ask if the people they'll appoint will do more good. Sanders wins easily there as Clinton's appointees will all be in the pockets of industry.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:04 AM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


By the way, if anyone's interested in watching today's public Arizona Election Fraud Hearing live, see here.

I just started watching, but apparently a lobbyist got booed, so you know it's good.
posted by kyp at 11:05 AM on March 28, 2016 [9 favorites]


jeffburdges - i wasn't responding to you - your comment hadn't actually even hit my screen before i hit post since you made it less than a minute before i made mine. your condescension about the president's actual powers is misdirected and unnecessary.
posted by nadawi at 11:10 AM on March 28, 2016


Author Thomas Frank Talks Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and His New Book, ‘Listen Liberal’

But if you look at the Obama years at this meritocracy of failure — you know, with these guys at the Justice Department, they can’t figure out how to prosecute a Wall Street executive. They can’t figure out how to enforce antitrust. Or you look at the guys at the Treasury Department who are bailing out banks. This has been a disaster and it has been the best and the brightest who have done it. So you look at that and you start to wonder, maybe expertise is a problem.

(Been wondering what happened to Frank)
posted by Trochanter at 11:19 AM on March 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


Wow, people in Arizona are pissed off. As well they should be.
posted by kyp at 11:25 AM on March 28, 2016 [10 favorites]


man at hearing - 'daughter- bernie supporter registered life long democrat told at poll she was not registered democrat any longer and her vote doesn't count'
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:36 AM on March 28, 2016


man - 'making case- against voter disenfranchisement because of felonies'
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:40 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


man - 'asking that Helen Purcell resign - expressing anger at the race called in media after only 1% of votes counted- voter suppression in action'
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:56 AM on March 28, 2016


Maybe don't do this.

Okay, but it is a possible factor in these polls. If you're talking about general election polls, you're talking about general election voters. There's going to be independents and conservative-leaning men who are going to choose Trump over Clinton because of gender. There's also going to be the counter effect, but I think it skews more towards the former.
posted by FJT at 11:57 AM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


woman - 'making arguments about VRA, also respect for people who stayed in lines for hours'
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:58 AM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


woman ' contrasting proximity of polling stations of wealthy areas to poor areas in Maricopa county'
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:00 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Shots fired at the Capitol building. Shelter in place ordered. Video of people running.
posted by futz at 12:01 PM on March 28, 2016


personal opinion - I get a vibe from Arizona's House Elections committee that is standoffish and dismissive.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:03 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Capitol police officer shot but not seriously injured, suspect in custody.
posted by maudlin at 12:05 PM on March 28, 2016


But if you look at the Obama years at this meritocracy of failure — you know, with these guys at the Justice Department, they can’t figure out how to prosecute a Wall Street executive. They can’t figure out how to enforce antitrust. Or you look at the guys at the Treasury Department who are bailing out banks. This has been a disaster and it has been the best and the brightest who have done it. So you look at that and you start to wonder, maybe expertise is a problem.

I respect Franks so much, but I think this is a reductive and incorrect way to look at this. It's not the career bureaucrats who get to determine what their government departments will pursue. The responsibility for lack of regulatory teeth falls ultimately on the President and his political appointees. And this doesn't even touch the resource squeeze many government entities have contended with under this Congress. DOJ, for example, had a longtime hiring freeze that only recently ended - which does horrible things for morale and staffing on investigations. For years, people would leave for other jobs and no one could be hired to fill those holes. Lots of the choices being made appear less shady and more desperate when you consider there is very limited pool of time, staff, and resources to cover a huge amount of corporate behavior.

I also think it makes no sense to find some common pattern between Treasury policy related to the bailout and DOJ policy related to everyday civil law enforcement.

The revolving door issue is very real, but most of the employees on the ground are not and have never have been in the kinds of positions that lead to that door. They are not the appointees. Most of the ones I know (family and friends) are working really hard with far less resources than the private sector people in their industries.
posted by sallybrown at 12:06 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mod note: Heya, yertle, maybe collect those into a digest of a comment if you want to keep taking notes on that, this thread's already hella long.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:06 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


cortex - Thanks - good idea. Was going to stop after the last quote i posted - I have to go back to work.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:09 PM on March 28, 2016


The reason we don't have a single payer health care system isn't because the American people don't want it, it's because of the inordinate influence of the health insurance industry on policy.

So I read this with some surprise and clicked your link, Backslash, but I can't watch auto-playing video at work, and the text just says "just over 50 percent of people say they still support the idea, including one-quarter of Republicans, according to a new poll." But it doesn't say what poll, or what the question was... Is there a source cited in the video?

So I googled, looking for another source, and found this article from The Atlantic.

That says that 39% of Americans support single payer (vs 33% oppose and 26% neither), but "But when asked whether they’d be willing to either pay higher taxes for such a plan or give up their own, employer-sponsored plans for a government-run insurance plan, they were decidedly less bullish. Thirty-nine percent said they would oppose a plan that meant either of those steps. Support thinned further as the pollsters brought up the other potential pitfalls of single-payer systems."

I also found this Politfact article which reviews a bunch of polls on the subject over the past 70 years. "Polls had consistently shown that a majority of Americans wanted some form of universal health care coverage — they want uninsured people to have insurance -- but there was wide disagreement about how to do that. For example, some people supported keeping the current the system, but with tax credits to help uninsured people buy private insurance, while others backed requiring employers to provide employee health insurance, or to pay into a government fund that would pay to cover those without insurance."
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:39 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah in general people want everyone to have health and they want somebody else to pay for it.
posted by Justinian at 12:55 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]




...I’m not here to argue about Clinton versus Sanders. I genuinely like them both. I’m here to say that I’m sick of seeing her reviled for the same things people forgive easily when they’re done by men, and that the stakes are too high this election cycle to indulge that or leave it unexamined. If you’re reviling Clinton for saying something racist and stupid in 1994 in favor of a crime bill that turned out to be a very bad idea, but you’re not reviling Sanders for actually using his political power to pass that very bad crime bill law, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is. If you’re reviling Clinton for campaign contributions made by banks, but did not revile Barack Obama for the same thing, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is.
Privilege is what allows Sanders supporters to say they’ll ''never'' vote for Clinton
posted by y2karl at 1:00 PM on March 28, 2016 [10 favorites]


FTA about privilege: mistakenly said that former US first lady Nancy Reagan was a key supporter of AIDS research

Why does anyone read further than this? She didn't mistakenly say that. She lied, for her own purposes. Putting this in your article makes the entire thesis less than credible.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:07 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Lied" is your interpretation and assumes she knew what she said was incorrect. That may or may not be true.
posted by Justinian at 1:10 PM on March 28, 2016 [10 favorites]


I assume since she lived through that time as an adult, that she knew that was incorrect. If she didn't, she is not qualified to be president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:15 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Lied" is your interpretation and assumes she knew what she said was incorrect.

Well, she certainly knew the next day, when she tweeted: "While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, I misspoke about their record on H.I.V. and AIDS. For that, I’m sorry."
posted by Etrigan at 1:15 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh good - another opinion article chastising voters for their preference. Whether or not a person chooses to vote or not vote for someone is based on privilege or not - is subject to so many variables, that it is challenging to determine the validity of the claim. No candidate is owed a vote from any given voter. It is the person running for office that needs to win the voters - vote.

I usually feel antagonism towards arguments that attack the voters in anyway shape or form. After these arguments are put forward the discussion then seem to gravitate once again towards bashing any given candidates supporters.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:25 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Justinian, the alternatives to "lied" that I can see are "ignorant" or "confused". I'm guessing you don't think she's ignorant in this way; do you really think her comment was genuine confusion? Like, she just didn't know what the words she was saying meant? I find that more disconcerting than her making an ill-considered decision to tell a "white lie" as a kind gesture to those in mourning.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 1:29 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Almost all Sanders supporters who avoid voting for Clinton can and will do so on the grounds that Clinton will can beat Trump in the general, y2karl. And ditto any Clinton supporters who skip voting for Sanders.

And Sanders supporters do now revile Barack Obama for his coziness with Wall St. It's true they supported Obama against Clinton 8ish years ago, possibly on similar grounds, but that's ultimately because Obama's campaign tricked them. And folks got rather upset about that actually.

As an aside, there are only two things that Clinton's AIDS comment suggests : 1st, AIDS was not a significant concern for her at the time, hence her confusion. 2nd, she wants the Reagan years viewed positively, probably because she still supports Bill Clinton's economic policies. It's fine to be annoyed of about the 1st, but the real nasty is the 2nd. It suggests she actually supports the trade policies of Obama's USTR, like say ISDS.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:32 PM on March 28, 2016


Man, that is some pretzel logic...
posted by y2karl at 1:38 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well, it's not like I am going to sell everything I own to start a religion devoted to her. I just wish the reverse didn't seem so true.
posted by y2karl at 1:40 PM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


In re Clinton and AIDS: my immediate assumption was that it's a political risk in the mainstream to say anything bad about St. Reagan, and mumble-mouthing about Nancy right after her death wasn't an endorsement of anything in particular except "don't want to get bashed as not liking Reagan". Of course it was a dreadful lie, but it's no worse than the routine lies that virtually all politicians have to tell in order to avoid getting denounced as commie pinko Normal-American haters.

I remember Ron and Nancy and cut my political teeth on loathing them. I none the less do not feel that this says anything in particular about Clinton.
posted by Frowner at 1:40 PM on March 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


Personally I think Hillary Clinton was indeed probably confused about what Nancy Reagan said (or didn't say) about AIDS in the 1980s, because Hillary Clinton probably knew her in the 1990s...
What does seem to be true is that when the Reagan administration eventually did decide to respond to the AIDS crisis, Nancy Reagan was among the influential administration figures pushing for that decision. ... By 1985, Reagan finally said the word "AIDS" in response to a question at a press conference, and in 1987 he addressed it in a speech. Those small concessions, as well as some funding for research into the disease, came as a result of tireless advocacy and activism work from a range of groups that eventually forced the White House's hand. Nancy Reagan was, it seems, relatively more open to those activists' arguments than many other key players in the Reagan administration.
Too little too late, of course. But by the time Hillary Clinton was first lady, the Reagans' rhetoric on AIDS would have been softer, and if they spoke to Clinton herself about it, they would have presumably softened it further. Perhaps this would give Clinton a distorted impression of what their views had been previously.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:43 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


It is worth remembering that Bill Clinton was heavily, heavily protested for his AIDS policies. I do realize he and the Clinton foundation have done a lot of good in recent years, though.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:48 PM on March 28, 2016


Sanders has better odds of beating Trump in the general election. He has a long record of getting things done as a legislator. As with any President, he, too, would have the option to veto bad legislation.

"Long record of getting things done" is debatable. Anyway, Sanders has yet to be subjected to any serious negative campaigning. People's perceptions of him are currently entirely shaped by "millionaires and billionaires" and birds on podiums.

Hey, let's go down the list of all the things that will come up in the general that look really bad and haven't been touched: And that's even without beating on the drum of the liberal and conservative economic groups that have taken apart his policy proposals. I think it's laughable to assume Sanders is totally going to beat Trump when he's been treated with kid gloves thus far by all possible contenders. Clinton is actively trying to not go dirty, and the Republicans don't dare attack him now because they want to face him in the general.

-----------

Meanwhile, there is nothing the Republicans can throw at Clinton that she hasn't already been through. This is the worst it gets for her. As for passing legislation--Clinton has a much longer history of policy wonkery and negotiation than either Sanders or Obama, Sanders has been unable to stop pissing off Democrats in Congress, much less the opposing one, and there is a case to be made that Obama made already obstructionist-inclined Republicans worse when he told them to put up or shut up shortly after taking office.
posted by Anonymous at 1:48 PM on March 28, 2016


Clinton giving a very relaxed and confident speech in Madison about the importance of the Supreme Court nomination.
posted by zutalors! at 2:09 PM on March 28, 2016


She's tying herself to the Obama legacy in this speech. I'm surprised she doesn't have a giant cardboard Obama next to her giving a double thumbs up.
posted by Justinian at 2:12 PM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


If she gets the nomination, she'll get the real thing.
posted by zutalors! at 2:17 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Justinian, the alternatives to "lied" that I can see are "ignorant" or "confused". I'm guessing you don't think she's ignorant in this way

No, I think she likely did not realize how bad the Reagans were on AIDS for a long time. Because I think most people didn't know that. It may seem completely obvious to some folks here but that isn't necessarily the case for most people, even people who were in (state) politics at the time.

It's certainly not laudable but neither is it evil or terrible. I'm roughly as bothered by it as I am by Sanders' issue with Fidel Castro. Which seems similar to me in scope and scale.
posted by Justinian at 2:18 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


I know there is a lot of "probably" and "maybe" and "if" in my theory above about how Clinton came to say what she said about the Reagans and AIDS, but I don't think "she lied" makes much sense.

Consider -- that would be a stupid thing to deliberately lie about, since it is clearly a matter of both historical record and living memory. And sucking up to Reagan worshipers, especially during the Democratic primary? Why would she do that? Those are not the voters she needs, nor are they people who would be moved by stories of Nancy Reagan's supposed leadership on AIDS. For obvious reasons, people who care AIDS are not Reagan worshipers.

There is just no scenario in which lying about this would be a good idea strategy-wise. So I see it as far more likely that she let personal impressions color her memory of political history, speaking at the funeral of a woman she actually knew.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:25 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


She also wasn't speaking at the funeral when she said that. She was on site, but it was a one on one interview. But all the articles showed her at a lectern.
posted by zutalors! at 2:28 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: A few comments removed. A couple things: (1) At a certain point low-level metacommentary stuff just needs to end up actually going to MetaTalk. (2) Generally speaking, just about the least pertinent aspect of a discussion of election stuff on MetaFilter—which is not a campaign event or sidewalk clipboard advocacy gig—is whether and who you are personally voting for. If the gist of your contribution to the discussion comes down to that, please just skip it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:41 PM on March 28, 2016 [9 favorites]


Clinton senior strategist Joel Benenson suggests no more debates unless Sanders' tone improves.

the World's Tone Policeman
posted by Apocryphon at 2:43 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


It is ignorant of history to equate lauding someone who is largely responsible for a public health disaster that lead to deaths of about 40 million human beings -- and the ongoing infection of the same number, roughly -- with a dictator whose scope of action was limited to one small island.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:49 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


It would be great if Sanders supporters who don't care about his Castro comments could do so without minimizing the significance of Cuba and its impact on Latin America. I don't mind so much "this statement is irrelevant to the nomination", but "Cuba is irrelevant" implications really bother me.
posted by corb at 2:55 PM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


Both teams are saying a lot of dumb stuff today. Exhaustion, I'd guess.
The crux of the [Sanders] campaign's argument for why it can overtake Clinton in the remaining contests is that the Sanders campaign does very well in states where it chooses to compete. The campaign was willing to write off big losses in many southern states as part of its strategy of focusing on winning a majority in as many states as possible, rather than capturing as many delegates as possible in states it wouldn't win.

"Her grasp now on the nomination is almost entirely on the basis of victories where Bernie Sanders did not compete," said senior strategist Tad Devine. "Where we compete with Clinton, where this competition is real, we have a very good chance of beating her in every place that we compete with her."

Devine named eight states where he said the Sanders campaign did not compete with a big presence on the ground or much on-air advertising: Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas. Clinton, Devine argued, "has emerged as a weak front-runner."

This line of reasoning was quickly challenged by reporters ...
If we are to take Devine at face value, the bolded part seems to be describing something similar to Clinton's failed attempt in 2008. But as Steve Benen points out:
... Tad Devine’s pitch isn’t altogether accurate. In Virginia, for example – one of the eight primaries in which he says Team Sanders chose not to compete – plenty of campaign watchers know the senator actually made an effort in the commonwealth and lost anyway. The senator also campaigned in Texas, which is another one of the states Devine said the campaign wrote off.

As for the argument that Sanders wins “in every place that we compete with her,” even taken at face value, it’s not an especially compelling argument: Team Sanders made a real effort to win in states like Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, and Massachusetts, but he lost in each of them.

Don’t be too surprised if Devine walks back his comments today. It’s just not a message that does Team Sanders any favors.
posted by maudlin at 2:58 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Gary Johnson, libertarian candidate on MSNBC is the first candidate I've seen who rejects the drone program.
posted by zutalors! at 2:59 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


2016 voter's guide

(you guys are making this SO complicated)
posted by pyramid termite at 3:03 PM on March 28, 2016 [9 favorites]




#TracyFlick2016
posted by zutalors! at 3:08 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]



I found an updated version of the same voter's guide.

Clever, but that same argument was used against Obama in 2008 by Republicans.
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:10 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


pyramid termite: "2016 voter's guide

(you guys are making this SO complicated)
"

Nice bit of vote shaming there.
posted by octothorpe at 3:13 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Devine named eight states where he said the Sanders campaign did not compete with a big presence on the ground or much on-air advertising: Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas. Clinton, Devine argued, "has emerged as a weak front-runner."

And hardcore berners fume and puzzle about why African Americans aren't exactly crawling all over themselves to back the senator. Hey, Team Sanders: Maybe next time think about spreading the Good News About Bernie out to where the black people actually live?
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:17 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sanders has been massively outspending Clinton, including in states he didn't win. If he's not trying in those states, then why blow his resources? So confusing.

2016 voter's guide

(you guys are making this SO complicated)


I believe we call this establishing a false dichotomy. Which is corrected in the "updated" version.


Clever, but that same argument was used against Obama in 2008 by Republicans.

Man, does this even get as far as being ad hominem? "This phrase was used by these people we don't like at one point in the past, therefore it applies to nothing, ever."
posted by Anonymous at 3:17 PM on March 28, 2016


And hardcore berners fume and puzzle about why African Americans aren't exactly crawling all over themselves to back the senator. Hey, Team Sanders: Maybe next time think about spreading the Good News About Bernie out to where the black people actually live?

I agree with the criticism of Ted Devines clunkiness RE - strategy in the South. Really dumb comments by him there.

I question your assumption that there is no one campaigning for Sanders where black people live.
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:22 PM on March 28, 2016


Man, does this even get as far as being ad hominem? "This phrase was used by these people we don't like at one point in the past, therefore it applies to nothing, ever."

No, just pointing out that similar rhetoric was used in the past towards Obama.
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:24 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


In a political discussion among adults, the concept of vote shaming is absurd.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:25 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


No, just pointing out that similar rhetoric was used in the past towards Obama.

I will take your comment at face value, and assume you're not making a version of an ad hominem argument. I guess I'm having trouble understanding why your comment is relevant when Obama vs. McCain was an entirely different situation in literally every way than Sanders vs. Clinton. I mean, Obama wasn't calling for a revolution and a complete upheaval of the entire economy, he was arguing a different set of polices than McCain.
posted by Anonymous at 3:30 PM on March 28, 2016


I question your assumption that there is no one campaigning for Sanders where black people live.

I believe they were basing this assumption off of the direct words of Tad Devine, Sanders's campaign manager, who claimed the campaign did not try to compete in Southern states.

Either the campaign manager is lying and they did try to compete in states where a high percentage of Black people live, or the campaign manager is telling the truth and they didn't try to compete in states where a high percentage of Black people live.

The campaign has said that their strategy involves targeting mostly-White states, so really, it could go either way.
posted by Anonymous at 3:36 PM on March 28, 2016


The weird thing about the "we didn't try" thing is that it actually raises more questions than it answers. I mean, why didn't you try? The obvious answer is that they knew they didn't have a shot and decided not to waste the resources, but then we're back to asking why they didn't have a shot. And otherwise, why did they choose not to try?

The Sanders campaign really seems to be struggling to find a non-offensive narrative about their big losses in the South. Honestly, they're probably better off just saying that they have no idea why they've done so badly in the South and then moving on.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:41 PM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


I will take your comment at face value, and assume you're not making a version of an ad hominem argument. I guess I'm having trouble understanding why your comment is relevant when Obama vs. McCain was an entirely different situation in literally every way than Sanders vs. Clinton. I mean, Obama wasn't calling for a revolution and a complete upheaval of the entire economy, he was arguing a different set of polices than McCain.

Thanks. I remember clearly when the argument was used in 2008 against the supporters of Obama - because I supported him passionately that year. That rhetoric was very ugly then as it is now.

It's relevant because Sanders supporters do not think of him as a messiah( well maybe some do? ) . I am sensitive to the uses of any religious imagery as rhetorical devices in relation to any candidate for office.
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:42 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's relevant because Sanders supporters do not think of him as a messiah( well maybe some do? ) . I am sensitive to the uses of any religious imagery as rhetorical devices in relation to any candidate for office.

What does that have to do with the fundamental point of the updated graphic, which is that in its original form it presents a false dichotomy wherein Clinton supporters think "the system" is just fine and don't want anything to change, and Sanders supporters are the only ones aware the country has problems (and aren't blaming them on race)?
posted by Anonymous at 3:47 PM on March 28, 2016


I think the narrative around this election, however misguided, is that the overlap between Trump and Bernie supporters IS that that's the segment of the population that wants radical change, whereas Clinton would be very similar to an Obama presidency. Maybe with more war.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:53 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


What does that have to do with the fundamental point of the updated graphic, which is that in its original form it presents a false dichotomy wherein Clinton supporters think "the system" is just fine and don't want anything to change, and Sanders supporters are the only ones aware the country has problems (and aren't blaming them on race)?

I agree with you that orig flow chart is overly reductive in the first place - it's goofy political humor.

The line that stuck out to me instantly was this
where it says that people are "pinning all their hopes on a single messianic figure".
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:56 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Can we acknowledge that both graphics were reductionist and move on?
posted by kyp at 3:56 PM on March 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


Oh well, the "messianic figure" part is stupid, I agree, but so was a simple "no" for Clinton.

(Splitters!)
posted by maudlin at 3:58 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


I agree with you that orig flow chart is overly reductive in the first place - it's goofy political humor.

thank you - people could lighten up once in awhile, you know
posted by pyramid termite at 4:20 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


The campaign has said that their strategy involves targeting mostly-White states...

They have? They've said "We're targeting mostly white states"? Please provide a link to someone in the Sanders campaign saying that.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:23 PM on March 28, 2016 [8 favorites]


I agree with you that orig flow chart is overly reductive in the first place - it's goofy political humor.

thank you - people could lighten up once in awhile, you know


And yet, I do think there's a basic split between people who think things just need a few tweaks, and those who think things have gone really badly south.
posted by Trochanter at 4:31 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


This political season seems as far from "lightening up" as any one I've ever seen.
posted by telstar at 4:34 PM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think this NPR article is a pretty balanced take on Sanders and his popularity with Black voters.

As we're seeing across most (all?) voter blocs, the split is largely across generational lines. Young voters big on Sanders, older voters prefer Clinton.
So, which point of view is correct? Sanders does horribly with minority voters? Or the media does a bad job of telling the story of Sanders' existing minority support?

"Well, I think looking at the exit polls," Randy Brown of Edison Research told NPR, "they're both correct."

Edison conducts entrance and exit polling for American elections, and has conducted polls on primary voters and caucusgoers in 20 states so far this election.

Brown said, by some measures, Sanders actually leads among black and Latino voters.

"Among African-Americans, who are 17 through 29, Bernie Sanders is actually leading that group, 51 to 48 [percent]," he said. "Among 17-to-29-year old Hispanics, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 66-34."

"I think the big takeaway," Brown said, "is that whether it's among whites or African-Americans, Bernie Sanders does significantly better among the youngest voters in the Democratic primary."
posted by kyp at 4:39 PM on March 28, 2016 [13 favorites]


Clinton senior strategist Joel Benenson suggests no more debates unless Sanders' tone improves.

#ToneDownForWhat

(for those that don't get the reference)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:12 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]




“With all the backlash, with all the bitterness they endured. It was important for us to be there today. It was emotional,” said Backus, who came with her ­­­9-year-old son, Robert Richardson. “It’s important for me that my son see people who look like us in the White House."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:32 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


> But if you look at the Obama years at this meritocracy of failure — you know, with these guys at the Justice Department, they can’t figure out how to prosecute a Wall Street executive. They can’t figure out how to enforce antitrust. Or you look at the guys at the Treasury Department who are bailing out banks. This has been a disaster and it has been the best and the brightest who have done it. So you look at that and you start to wonder, maybe expertise is a problem.

Meritocracy of Failure: Video, Thomas Frank on the State of the Democratic Party, interviewed by Thom Hartmann (via).
posted by homunculus at 5:52 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


(Been wondering what happened to Frank)

Open thread.
posted by homunculus at 5:54 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


That Clooney fundraiser apparently won't just fund Clinton, but a lot of down ticket Democrats. Clinton will get $2,700 (maybe $5,400?) of each $353,400 ticket.
The Bay Area fundraiser, hosted at the home of venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar, is one of two events starring the Clooneys. On April 16, Clinton and the Clooneys will reunite at the Clooney Los Angeles mansion, where tickets cost $33,400 per person to dine at the table with one of Hollywood’s most glamorous couples.

Both events raise money for the Hillary Victory Fund. While the maximum donation to a presidential campaign is $2,700 for the primary elections (plus another $2,700 for the general), the Hillary Victory Fund can accept much larger contributions because it is a so-called joint fundraising committee that is comprised of multiple committees.

In addition to Hillary for America, which is Clinton’s main campaign committee, the Hillary Victory Fund also includes the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees.

The maximum donation to the DNC is $33,400 a year, while the state parties each can accept donations of $10,000 a year into their federal accounts.

Clinton’s typical, non-A-list-actor fundraisers for the primary require hosts to raise $10,000 to $50,000. A fundraiser last week at the home of best-selling author John Grisham in Virginia, for instance, required co-hosts to raise $10,000.
Seeing big money go to political campaigns does make me rather itchy, but OTOH, this is a lot of money going to races across the country for dozens of candidates. I admire the way Sanders is getting his funding from a huge number of small donors, but if I'm reading my sources correctly, he isn't doing very much fundraising for Democratic candidates. (If I'm wrong, please let me know.)

One possible ironic outcome could be that Clinton raises enough money to help Democrats across the country make inroads in Congress, while Sanders manages to overcome the odds and becomes the nominee. He might only get the backup he needs in Congress because Clinton has raised the funds that he would not or could not.
posted by maudlin at 5:55 PM on March 28, 2016 [22 favorites]


That's exactly correct; Clinton's fundraising machine is good for all Democrats. She is kicking ass for downticket races while Sanders is doing relatively little.

We here on Metafilter claim to understand that it's not just the Presidency that matters. Local government matters. State government matters. The House matters. A lot. This is what working for those races looks like.

The more Clinton can raise to help take the Senate the better. The more she can raise to claw away at the Republican stranglehold on the House the better. Sanders may want a revolution but he'd find it a very lonely one if he takes the White House and loses everywhere else.
posted by Justinian at 6:08 PM on March 28, 2016 [16 favorites]


Also, you want to know why the Democratic establishment supports Clinton? This is why. She's the reason so many of them are going to have money to win their races. There's nothing nefarious about that. Sanders is a good guy but politics is a team sport.
posted by Justinian at 6:13 PM on March 28, 2016 [14 favorites]


I think I know what Bernie's campaign would say (that they're going to start a political revolution, and they don't need to fundraise for the downticket because Bernie will have amazing, revolutionary coattails) and what they would do (denounce the DNC at every turn while hypocritically relying on them to raise money for congressional races), but I think the real answer is that the Sanders campaign never really expected to be viable, and they're making it up as they go along. I don't think they really thought about this, because they didn't especially expect for it to be an issue they would have to worry about.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:19 PM on March 28, 2016 [10 favorites]


They have? They've said "We're targeting mostly white states"? Please provide a link to someone in the Sanders campaign saying that.

Sure.
Aides have long said they wanted to survive to this point as a viable candidacy, before heading into a stretch marked by caucuses in largely white states that would enable them to build back momentum against Hillary Clinton. After that, they’re hoping they can persuade the Democratic superdelegates to put them over the top if they’re close enough to Clinton in pledged delegates.
I linked this in a previous comment, though I don't blame anyone for not following this 3000+ comment thread monster. I think we're through at least the third cycle of the same set of arguments. Here is a previous comment I left with a list of links that discuss the disparity between the appeal of Clinton versus Sanders to POC (though the bulk of the comment is with respect to Black voters).
posted by Anonymous at 6:26 PM on March 28, 2016


I think this NPR article is a pretty balanced take on Sanders and his popularity with Black voters.

. . . An article explicitly discussing a demographic's support for Bernie is a "balanced take"?

The polling numbers that they cite are different from the ones I've seen, which have Clinton still leading among young POC (though to a lesser degree).

I am starting to ignore polls entirely unless they're aggregates a la 538, because I'm finding it difficult to judge when a poll can be trusted and when it's there to produce the answer the candidate or pollster wants.
posted by Anonymous at 6:58 PM on March 28, 2016


#ToneDownForWhat

(Is this the place to discuss how Lil Jon should completely have won Season 4 of Celebrity Apprentice? #stillbitter)
posted by sallybrown at 7:02 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Would a VP offer make up for it?
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:04 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


So I JUST now realized why Sanders is big on $27 donations: it's 1% of $2,700.

(Never mind me. I've been doing my best to avoid election stuff this year, but I'm slowly catching up.)
posted by maudlin at 7:11 PM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


Aides have long said they wanted to survive to this point as a viable candidacy, before heading into a stretch marked by caucuses in largely white states that would enable them to build back momentum against Hillary Clinton. After that, they’re hoping they can persuade the Democratic superdelegates to put them over the top if they’re close enough to Clinton in pledged delegates.

I'd be very interested to see the original quotes that is paraphrased from.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:16 PM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]



So I JUST now realized why Sanders is big on $27 donations: it's 1% of $2,700.


ha, I didn't realize that.
posted by zutalors! at 7:17 PM on March 28, 2016


. . . An article explicitly discussing a demographic's support for Bernie is a "balanced take"?

Yes, it offers a balanced interpretation of the discrepancy between his weakness in Black support versus strength in other minority support. I.e., Black voters are not a monolithic bloc, and that is a generational divide across demographics.

What's your definition of a balanced take in the context of discussing his Black support?

The polling numbers that they cite are different from the ones I've seen, which have Clinton still leading among young POC (though to a lesser degree).

Can you link to these? I'd like to take a look as well.
posted by kyp at 7:33 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


So I JUST now realized why Sanders is big on $27 donations: it's 1% of $2,700.

Perhaps I am confused by your comment but $27 is the amount of the average donation to his campaign. Sanders isn't "big" on that amount. It is just the way the math shakes out.

Or is this a whoosh moment for me?
posted by futz at 7:51 PM on March 28, 2016


Reuters polling also backs up the assertion that younger Black Democratic voters are in the Sanders camp, 50% to 46%.

It's when you look at folks over 35 that you start seeing the numbers dramatically shift towards Clinton, 75% to 18%.

None of this is meant as a knock on older voters. As PoC, I just want to point out that it's unfair to talk about PoC support (on either side) without also looking at the breakdown to get a complete understanding of what's happening.

edit: I said "including" when I should have said "in isolation", the 2nd link is to Black Democratic voters over 35 only
posted by kyp at 7:55 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]




Should be read in this man's voice.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:00 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


It might be a whoosh moment for either of us, futz, (I'm still catching up!) but he's talked about that specific amount in several interviews. Wouldn't the average amount have changed by now? (The average was just under $25 in September, $27.16 overall for 2015, $27 in February, and I haven't seen a new value quoted since.) But if it truly hasn't changed, maybe that's even more of a sign from the heavens than Birdie Sanders.
posted by maudlin at 8:00 PM on March 28, 2016


Is he asking for $27 in his emails? He should.
posted by zutalors! at 8:04 PM on March 28, 2016


Well I have been paying attention and $27 as an average donation has been his mantra. Whether it is $27.16 or whatever doesn't matter to me but it has zero do do with it being 1% of $2700.
posted by futz at 8:05 PM on March 28, 2016



Well I have been paying attention and $27 as an average donation has been his mantra. Whether it is $27.16 or whatever doesn't matter to me but it has zero do do with it being 1% of $2700.


it's interesting though? no? it's not an insult or anything.
posted by zutalors! at 8:07 PM on March 28, 2016


From a Sanders fundraising plea late last month:
  • “27 states and territories have their primaries and caucuses in the next several weeks
  • “Last night, the Clinton campaign held a fundraiser where where some donors bundled $27,000
  • “The average contribution to our campaign is just $27
“If we keep moving forward together, we are going to win. Contribute $27 to our political revolution so we can show the billionaire class that they can't have it all.”
There's also a "Donate $27" button on the front of berniesanders.com. I think the campaign is very deliberately contrasting $27 versus $2700.
posted by mbrubeck at 8:22 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


zulalorsi, you should just sign up for the emails. I am on every candidates mailing list, because I want to see what they are saying. It will help you understand the spin of each campaign.

Then again, I am a glutton for punishment it seems.
posted by daq at 8:23 PM on March 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


There's also a "Donate $27" button on the front of berniesanders.com. I think the campaign is very deliberately contrasting $27 versus $2700.

Yeah, I agree.

WRT emails, I have Hillary and the DCCC emailing me, and now they're all calling me, along with the Senate committee, so I'm good on emails and understand spin. I did donate to Bernie's campaign btw.
posted by zutalors! at 8:28 PM on March 28, 2016




I don't know whether to be more annoyed at the facile reading of politics or the facile reading of Game of Thrones. Probably the latter.
posted by Justinian at 8:57 PM on March 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


they didn't even bother with Kasich.
posted by zutalors! at 8:57 PM on March 28, 2016


Reuters polling also backs up the assertion that younger Black Democratic voters are in the Sanders camp, 50% to 46%.

In the Sanders camp? Depending on the sample size that might be within the margin of error.

IMHO those numbers are more accurately characterized as "Older Black Democrats massively favor Hillary while younger Black Democrats are more or less evenly split."
posted by msalt at 9:18 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sure, that's a fair interpretation as well, and demonstrates that there is a big divide (+20 points) between the young and old.
posted by kyp at 9:45 PM on March 28, 2016


"You should be willing to debate anytime anywhere" and other highlights.

Hillary 2008: "Honestly, I just believe that this is the most important job in the world, it’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote, you should be willing to debate anytime; anywhere."

Dr. Jill Stein:

It's time to tone it up, not down. 📢

#ToneDownForWhat

#LetJillDebate 🎙
posted by futz at 9:46 PM on March 28, 2016 [5 favorites]



There's also a "Donate $27" button on the front of berniesanders.com. I think the campaign is very deliberately contrasting $27 versus $2700.


Sigh. Because the average donation amounted to $27 they made the donation button that.

You guys are reading too much into it. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
posted by futz at 9:54 PM on March 28, 2016


#LetJillDebate

Too bad that Ronald Reagan had his cabinet dismantle the Fairness Doctrine rules — obligating the media to do a better and broader job of coverage would be healthier for our democracy. Not having to face scrutiny from anyone else from the left is just one more thing Clinton can publicly thank the Reagans for, I suppose.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:12 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


If Hillary would let Jill Stein on the debate stage, I would vote for Hillary in the general.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:22 PM on March 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


futz, this HuffPo article about Bernie's campaign finances (from six months ago) prominently features the numbers 270, 2,700, and 27,000,000.

Coincidence? I'll let you decide.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 10:36 PM on March 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


. . . Does Clinton even decide who she debates? Of course she can refuse, but she's not the one recruiting people to debate her. I was under the impression that's the decision of whatever media organization is doing the hosting.

And why would she debate somebody from an entirely different party before the primaries are over? I mean, if people are going to start advocating that, then why not lobby for a Bernie-Trump debate now? What better way for Bernie to demonstrate his strength in the general than to smash Trump immediately?
posted by Anonymous at 10:43 PM on March 28, 2016


It is really hard to not see this as a blatant attempt by Stein to get a day in the sun by riding on Bernie's Clinton-hate coattails.
posted by Anonymous at 10:46 PM on March 28, 2016


There was in fact talk of a Sanders/Trump debate earlier. Sanders response was, "Bring it on!"

Rebuffed yet again in coaxing Hillary Clinton onto Fox News, executives at the network had an outside-the-box idea last month that would have made primary debate history: a face-off between Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and the equally fiery candidate on the Republican side, Donald J. Trump.

The Trump campaign was initially very interested, according to Fox officials, and the Sanders campaign was on board. But before the debate could be announced, the Trump campaign pulled out, citing scheduling conflicts, so the network planned to welcome just Mr. Sanders in an hourlong town-hall-style event, hosted by Bret Baier as part of his “Special Report” program.

Late on Friday, the network received a surprise call. Mrs. Clinton would participate, ending her two-year absence from the network that her liberal base loves to criticize.


Anyway, we are in the stage of the election where the candidates decide these things. Hillary could easily get Stein on a debate stage if she wanted to. What are the networks gonna do, turn down the free ratings for a historic debate? But yes, you are correct this is just a cry for attention from the Greens, not a realistic possibility.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:52 PM on March 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm voting for the "uncanny valley" candidate.
posted by telstar at 12:29 AM on March 29, 2016


Possibly a part of the reason explaining the demographic differences in the PoC vote for Sanders.

Making College Free Could Add a Million New Black and Latino Graduates

Highlighting links from within:
Clinton: New College Compact
Sanders: College For All Act
posted by CincyBlues at 2:16 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Rep. Yarmuth (D - KY) has endorsed Clinton for Prez. Still, he finds a way to have significant agreement with Sanders re Israel/Palestine policy. I suspect he agrees more with Obama than Clinton re Netanyahu. Even though he is not my KY representative, nice to see a KY pol have such a balanced stand.
posted by CincyBlues at 2:39 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


the man of twists and turns: "Candidates as Game of Thrones characters"

I just unfollowed an old friend on Facebook for posting that exact meme two days ago. Clinton is Cersei Lannister? I though that Metafilter was better than that.
posted by octothorpe at 3:46 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Possibly a part of the reason explaining the demographic differences in the PoC vote for Sanders.

Making College Free Could Add a Million New Black and Latino Graduates
I don't think that it's right to suggest that older black and Latino people don't care about funding for college. Polls show that black and Latino parents are more likely than white parents to say that graduating from college is very important and are more likely than white parents to say that a college degree is a requirement for being middle class. My extremely anecdotal experience is that my black students, in particular, are more likely than white students to get help paying for college from extended family and community, such as their churches. And of course, there are many non-traditional students who are older than 30. My hunch would be that those people are disproportionately students of color, but I could completely be wrong about that. And I'm pretty sure that there's been polling that shows that black voters strongly support making college free but are very skeptical about Bernie's ability to get that proposal implemented.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:47 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]




They have? They've said "We're targeting mostly white states"? Please provide a link to someone in the Sanders campaign saying that.

Sure.


The linked article does not quote any Sanders campaign people talking about "largely white states;" that's the Politico writers characterizing those states that way. Not what I asked for.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:58 AM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]




well, she's a blithering idiot, then
posted by angrycat at 5:55 AM on March 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


Sarandon cited her admiration of Henry Kissinger, economic policy and the disastrous Libya policy as several reasons why she couldn't vote for the party's presidential frontrunner.


Doesn't seem like blithering to me. If Hillary Clinton's demonstrated failure in Foreign Policy and body count matters to someone, I can see it as a showstopper.
posted by mikelieman at 6:00 AM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


The lesser of two evils is STILL EVIL.
posted by mikelieman at 6:01 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


The lesser of two evils is STILL EVIL.

But, you know, less so.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:02 AM on March 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


I watched it. She was like "Benghazi, that's bad!" She also said she wouldn't mind a Trump revolution sending things to Hell. She described the Establishment as a bad boyfriend.

It was kind of blitheringy, actually.
posted by zutalors! at 6:02 AM on March 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


Well, I don't know how Clinton can survive the hit she'll take from losing the coveted demographic of people who take their voting cues from Susan Sarandon.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:03 AM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah, she's on that "well let Donald Trump get in there, we'll have a revolution" nonsense that people here have routinely made a point to explain just how bad of a position that is.
posted by cashman at 6:04 AM on March 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


If you're looking for an example to demonstrate that Bernie-or-nobody privilege thing, Susan Sarandon is, short of an Ed Begley, Jr. or an Alan Alda, about as good as you're going to get.
posted by box at 6:05 AM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


She was a hardcore Nader supporter previously, this should not be surprising.

Also, she is brilliant, talented, and dedicated to activism on a whole list of list of important causes. I really, really wish people could get over this thing where as soon as someone reveals they are a supporter of the wrong candidate that must mean they are blithering morons.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:09 AM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


To be clear, I totally think Sarandon is brilliant and a great activist, but that interview was not great.
posted by zutalors! at 6:10 AM on March 29, 2016


I've found Trump his VP.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:14 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, I mean, she's certainly entitled to her opinions. And I'm entitled to remember that this is not the first time that people like her predicted a revolution if things just got bad enough, and I'm entitled to reflect on the fact that, unlike her, I don't have the wealth and status to be totally insulated when the shit hits the fan. If she bets wrong, she can just pick up and move to the safe European capital of her choice. I don't think I really have an escape route.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:15 AM on March 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


She can't get over the wars. I don't know what to say when that gets called privilege.
posted by Trochanter at 6:18 AM on March 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


that's disingenuous, no one is calling that particular thing an example of her privilege.
posted by zutalors! at 6:20 AM on March 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


I don't think that it's right to suggest that older black and Latino people don't care about funding for college.

Well, then, thank goodness that neither the authors nor I made that suggestion. In fact, my anecdotal experience jibes with yours for the most part. Nevertheless, some of the enthusiasm among younger folks for a potentially less-obstacle strewn pathway to a more fully realized life just might be, I dunno, a little persuasive. And while I agree with you that immigrant and minority parents seem to be willing to make many sacrifices to help their kids get into and through college, it still remains to be considered whether or not a kid might feel better if they could alleviate some of that burden from their parents--especially in a society-wide, impartial way.

It's okay for kids to embrace the idealism of youth and to maybe try to figure out a way to make this possible. That way, they might actually feel, I dunno, like our society were more equitable?
posted by CincyBlues at 6:21 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I've found Trump his VP.

That would certainly win Florida for him. And would be so, so appropriate, since the "How is he even a professional at this, he lacks the actual superior talent needed to compete at this level" talk would cut across both people on the ticket. The party nomination would be that one playoff win, then hopefully everything else would be a resounding defeat, and perhaps both guys could spend the rest of their days under watch by the SEC.
posted by cashman at 6:28 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]




The party nomination would be that one playoff win, then hopefully everything else would be a resounding defeat

Yes, a devastating career ending defeat to a scandal prone often hated but obviously superior opponent. It all fits.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:40 AM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Have not watched the Sarandon bit, nor will I. But if what others report here is accurate, then I can't blame a person if their disagreements regarding Clinton's foreign policy might keep them from voting for her.

Speaking as a veteran, I absolutely hate Clinton's foreign policy and don;t really think she was a very good SecState. But I hate the notion of useless, imperialistic war. This has been a metric of mine that I judge all politicians on, going all the way back to my youth. I've learned that in this area, I'm likely to never get my wish. So, I'll vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination despite my belief that the bloodshed will continue. Even Sanders, who is a bit more circumspect on the foreign policy front, is not blameless in this regard.

Speaking of which, while I agree with A&C that Bernie's application for conscientious objector status during the 60s will be a vector of attack against him, that doesn't bother me personally. Most vets that I know respect a genuine desire to obtain that status, as opposed to the folks who ran off to Canada or Sweden back then, or the more modern chickenhawks who are so bloodthirsty now. (Go Fuck Yourself, Dick Cheney.) My very first political argument in my family was between my Dad and myself about Muhammed Ali's refusal to be drafted. Dad, being a WWII vet and of that ethos, thought it was cowardly. I, on the other hand, respected his choice to stay and risk prison rather than scoot off to another country.

Plus, I think that the populace is getting war-weary in general. There are a bunch of kids who play basketball across the street and I had a thought not too long ago about how they all had been born and were growing up in our post 9-11 bellicose nation. Makes me both sad and angry.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:47 AM on March 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


The Sexual Politics of 2016

I never thought I'd see the day when David Brooks used the term "gynophobic misogyny." Good on ya, Brooks. (Of course the very last line made me go "...did you not just call out people who think of women as things belonging to men?" but I'll take the incremental improvement.)
posted by sallybrown at 6:49 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Susan Sarandon is, short of an Ed Begley, Jr. or an Alan Alda..."

For some reason, I'm really tempted to ask you to develop the palette for my living room remodel.
posted by klarck at 7:08 AM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]



Plus, I think that the populace is getting war-weary in general.


I think this is sort of true, but not really. As soon as we talk about ISIS we're talking about military force - I liked one commentary I saw after Brussels that said the approach to radical Islam in Europe should be police focused, not military focused. But that's such a small voice.
posted by zutalors! at 7:14 AM on March 29, 2016


Al Franken for VP!
posted by Chrysostom at 7:16 AM on March 29, 2016 [4 favorites]




Of course the very last line made me go "...did you not just call out people who think of women as things belonging to men?" but I'll take the incremental improvement.

Ha, exactly. On the one hand, it's nice to see such an open discussion of the misogyny at the heart of Trump. Because he's hit on an interesting point here:

It’s not quite right to say that Trump is a throwback to midcentury sexism. At least in those days negative behavior toward women and family members was restrained by the chivalry code. Political candidates didn’t go attacking their rivals’ wives based on their looks. Trump’s objectification is uncontrolled. It’s pure ego competition with a pornogrified flavor.

But really, I would have liked to have seen an acknowledgment that genteel midcentury sexism wasn't exactly an improvement on the current situation. Trump may be the ugly id, but he's openly exposing the rotten soul that hid within "nicer" times when candidates were more openly chivalrous.

And yeah, forget our future daughters. It's not exactly fun times for the actual women living in this current atmosphere.
posted by Salieri at 7:19 AM on March 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


I just...I don't know if I have the stomach for a full on "battle of the sexes" election. Even if the Dem nominee is Sanders, Trump's favorability among women is so low that the pro-Trump faction is going to be dominated by men, so that's whom he'll pander to. If the nominee is Clinton, the sexism will be even more overt and hard to deal with.
posted by sallybrown at 7:30 AM on March 29, 2016


Well, we had the binders full of women just four years ago.
posted by zutalors! at 7:40 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Susan Sarandon resides in NY. Unless people think Trump has a serious chance of winning his home state, she can safely stay home, write in for Bernie, vote third party, etc.

People who get huffy about other people not voting for a party nominee should remember that solid states exist. They're the last bastion for voting according to one's conscience. Check our privilege.
posted by Apocryphon at 7:41 AM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


(Maybe Sarandon is one of the semi-#NeverClinton people on the Blue. If you're reading this, I love your work Susan! Keep on with your bad self!)
posted by sallybrown at 7:44 AM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't know why the goalposts keep moving on this one - people who think a Trump Presidency would be great because it would start a revolution are showing their privilege, no matter who they vote for.

Nothing bad would happen to Susan Sarandon in a Trump Presidency. She's in her late 60s, incredibly wealthy, is not an immigrant or a student or a reproductive age woman or LGBT or military or a PoC. She wants to put those people into conflict, she wants to turn on her TV and be like "Right on!" from a safe distance.
posted by zutalors! at 7:46 AM on March 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


I've been having some random thoughts about Trump vs. women and the theme of "revolution" that has been such a big part of this election cycle.

Brooks posits that we are going through "another great redefinition of masculinity". There are so many different ways to see this - and Brooks kinda glosses over something I'd love to see explored in more detail with the phrase "old in some ways, new in others". Because no, this is not new, not at all, and people who wring their hands over Trump's coarseness and vulgarity but have no problem when sexism and racism are quietly accepted (as long as we're all polite about it!) don't really have a leg to stand on. This is why it's been so interesting to see the Republican party act like an anthill that's been kicked over. The rot was always there at the heart, so don't even try to act like Trump is an alien invader to your polite little party.

I go back and forth on what to think about all of this being so open right now. One view is that this is like lancing a boil - it's ugly and painful, but it has to be done in order to heal. I think a similar attitude is behind the "let Trump win, burn it all to the ground so we can build something better," response I've seen. But there's no guarantee that this is indeed lancing a boil. Maybe it's just spreading the contagion and helping create a society where people no longer feel shame about openly speaking their worst impulses, no matter who they hurt. It doesn't help to make such ugliness the new normal unless people are actually going to fight against it. And it does nothing for the countless women and men who are right now being wounded by Trump's toxic version of masculinity. We need to think about both the future *and* the present of this country. If you want a (sexual, economic) revolution...what will you do for the people right now who are caught in the crossfires, the ones who will be hurt the most by burning it all to the ground?

One reason why this primary season is so painful is because I have a lot of empathy for people on both sides of the Democratic divide who are impacted by all of the ways in which our society is broken. There are different ideas of how to fix this, but it seems like everyone wants generally the same outcome in the end.
posted by Salieri at 7:49 AM on March 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


I do think there is a distinction between someone in a solidly blue or red state who votes her conscience and someone who refuses to vote for the lesser evil in a place where the race could be very close. It's definitely a privileged position to be able to make that "purer" choice, but it's a choice you can make without doing harm when you're not constrained by necessity in a purple state.
posted by sallybrown at 7:51 AM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


I do, however, believe that solid state/district registered voters shouldn't mislead people in more fluid areas into possibly voting against their interests. People everywhere should be aware of their specific risk level.
posted by Apocryphon at 7:59 AM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think people should vote for whoever they think is best for the job, and urge others to do the same.
-
Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski charged with battery for grabbing reporter in Florida
posted by Drinky Die at 8:17 AM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's nice to know that if a person assaults a reporter on video in front of a dozen witnesses that they'll eventually get arrested like a month later.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 8:31 AM on March 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Vox: In one poll, 33 percent of Sanders of voters say they won't vote for Clinton, and more than 60,000 people have already signed a pledge to that effect.
-
In July 2008, 54 percent of Clinton voters said they wouldn't support Barack Obama in a general election. (They even had a nickname, "PUMAs" — "party unity my ass," the 2008 analog to today's "Bernie or Busters.")

Ultimately, however, nine in 10 Democrats ended up voting for Obama over John McCain, according to the Nation.

posted by Drinky Die at 8:40 AM on March 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


Well, hopefully it turns out the same way this time around. But it still doesn't make the Bernie or Busters any less obnoxious than the PUMAs of eight years ago.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:47 AM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


I was on the Obama/Clinton fence and then went Obama, I guess early enough that I don't even remember the term PUMA.
posted by zutalors! at 8:49 AM on March 29, 2016


An Open Letter to Trump Supporters from his Top Strategist-Turned-Defector
posted by bardophile at 8:33 AM on March 29


That is a stunning article and I hope it gets wide circulation:
"Trump never intended to be the candidate. But his pride is too out of control to stop him now.

"You can give Trump the biggest gift possible if you are a Trump supporter: stop supporting him.

"He doesn't want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House. He’s achieved that already and then some. If there is any question, take it from someone who was recruited to help the candidate succeed, and initially very much wanted him to do so.
Get that person into heavy rotation on Fox News, stat.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:52 AM on March 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


His candidacy was a protest candidacy.
No, it was a vanity candidacy. There's a difference. Trump didn't want to shift the Overton Window or get people talking about some issue, unless you count "Donald Trump" as an issue.
posted by Etrigan at 8:55 AM on March 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


I do think there is a distinction between someone in a solidly blue or red state who votes her conscience and someone who refuses to vote for the lesser evil in a place where the race could be very close. It's definitely a privileged position to be able to make that "purer" choice, but it's a choice you can make without doing harm when you're not constrained by necessity in a purple state.

THIS. I'm voting for Hillary next week because I live in a formerly progressive state that the current governor and legislature are hell-bent on turning into a scorched-earth Galtian wasteland. A state where abortion will be made illegal pretty much instantaneously if the GOP gets to choose the next Supreme Court justice and they squeak out a 5-4 decision to overturn Roe. These are not concerns that I had even half a dozen years ago. So it pains me to observe that every single person I know who has been tirelessly trying to convince me to vote for Bernie is in a safer position than I am, be it socioeconomically or solid blue state-wise.

Pragmatically or financially, I can't just pick up and leave my lifelong home and birthplace -- frankly, I wouldn't feel smart betting on a revolution. I can't help thinking that most of the people who keep swearing up and down that a Trump victory would serve to solidify the efforts of progressive activists must be too young or materially insulated to remember the reign of W. Does it keep me up at night to know that I'm going to be voting for someone who voted for the goddamn interminable war? It sure as shit does. But I feel a responsibility to the citizens of my state to vote for the candidate I believe is more likely to win rather than the candidate whose ideals align most tidily with my own. Voting my conscience is a luxury I don't feel I can afford right now.
posted by amnesia and magnets at 9:05 AM on March 29, 2016 [15 favorites]


Right now I count Donald Trump as an issue tbh
posted by Elementary Penguin at 9:06 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


No, it was a vanity candidacy. There's a difference. Trump didn't want to shift the Overton Window or get people talking about some issue, unless you count "Donald Trump" as an issue.

In this case I think it's kind of a mix -- or a distinction without much difference. Trump's clearly motivated by some inchoate and genuine desire for restoration/"simplification", one could call it emotive conservatism, maybe; and also clearly wants to be seen as The Guy Who Fixes The Problem.

So in that sense, he does want to shift the Overton window on a different axis, which I think could be called the technocratic spectrum, ranging from things like scientific socialism / bureaucratic centrist technocracy / ideological big-government conservatism toward one extreme and anarchism / communitarianism / tribalism on the other end. (Toward the latter side, and obviously more on the conventionally conservative "tribalist" wing of that end.

Granted, he wouldn't articulate things in this way -- Donald Trump wouldn't know what an Overton Window is if it slammed on his tiny vulgar fingers. Nevertheless I think he is genuinely and somewhat intentionally trying to shift political discourse, and doing a damn good job of it, at least in the GOP bizarroverse.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:11 AM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


No, it was a vanity candidacy. There's a difference. Trump didn't want to shift the Overton Window or get people talking about some issue, unless you count "Donald Trump" as an issue.

This isn't precisely true.

It was a vanity candidacy, yes.

Well, more so than most.

But he's been pretty consistent about the issues that make up his stump speeches: immigration, the economy, free trade, government reform and anti-establishment/status quo rhetoric, and the threats he thinks are posed by Muslims, ISIS and Islamic fundamentalism (which he frequently conflates.) When asked or when it's timely, he'll also throw fearmongering over North Korea, China and Cuba into the mix. Same with abortion rights, the environment and gun control -- they're generally not mentioned by him unless he's asked, or if something about those issues is currently in the news.

People who follow him aren't doing so because he's Trump. They like what he has to say, and how he says it.
posted by zarq at 9:17 AM on March 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Re Trump's motivations - this election has settled once and for all my question of whether I can accurately guess why other people do the things they do, and the answer is a very firm NO.
posted by sallybrown at 9:22 AM on March 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Donald Trump wouldn't know what an Overton Window is if it slammed on his tiny vulgar fingers.

We are going to have a huuuge Overton window. It will be the best, very classy, I can tell you.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:24 AM on March 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


I think anyone who runs for President is an egomaniac to some degree - yes, including Obama and Sanders. But Trump is like the extreme version of that. He just talks about himself, nonstop.
posted by zutalors! at 9:24 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


The "let it get so bad there will be revolution" strategy has never helped the avergae joe in any society ever, unless I'm forgetting example.

There are two very common results:
1) a revolution that turns ugly, with new forms of repression by the new leaders (who by definition have removed all institutional checks on their power), or
2) the evil people you let take control just cement their control and everything gets worse.
posted by msalt at 9:30 AM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


The "let it get so bad there will be revolution" strategy has never helped the avergae joe in any society ever, unless I'm forgetting example.

Not to mention, its proponents are taking the laziest possible approach to pursuing political goals—one that involves doing exactly zero of the actual legwork that's required at all levels of government to actually get shit done. And yet we're to suppose that, come the revolution, these tough-talking keyboard warriors are actually going to tear themselves away from their X-Boxes to go out and man the barricades? Color me a skeptic.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:45 AM on March 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Funny, it's one of the reasons why I feel Sanders supporters could be persuaded to vote for Clinton. Suppose the worst case situation happens, and she's half as bad as her worst critics on the left claim she is. Wouldn't that be the final straw that breaks the back of the Democratic party? Couple that with a severe enough market correction and economic and anxiety and you can see the rebirth of Occupy. Except this time, it would have the organization coherence and semi-mainstream respectability that the Sanders campaign has provided, which OWS lacked. You'd have disgruntled Bernie supporters this year coming out of the woodwork. A Tea Party of the left, except instead of funded by small donors instead of Koch astroturfing. An effort to bring back the New Deal against the New Democratic establishment. Why should the Republicans be the only party to realign? A party that does not listen to its people should rightfully fear its base.

With that, anything's possible. Leverage to move Clinton's administration to the left. Popular anger should a 2008-type corporate-focused bailout be attempted. Primarying her in 2020.

This year, you can fulfill your accelerationist fantasies with literally any candidate. That's the beauty of it. Except the "revolution" in a worst case Clinton administration scenario is less self-indulgent post-apocalyptic fetishizing, and like, you know, actual political activism within an electoral framework.

On the other hand, Clinton might just turn out to be at least as okay as Obama has been. So people are disappointed, but not crushingly so. And we get entangled in a few more foreign escapades, but it's not like, full on invasion. So things turn out okay. With Clinton, at least you're tethered to sanity, and it's closer to win-win than the unthinkable alternatives that the GOP has so graciously offered this year. And yes, this is damnation by faint praise.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:50 AM on March 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Get that person into heavy rotation on Fox News, stat.

Maddow mentioned that piece around the 9pm hour on MSNBC. We'll see what happens next but I don't have high hopes it'll wake up anybody hateful enough to support him.
posted by cashman at 9:53 AM on March 29, 2016


Clinton is Cersei Lannister? I though that Metafilter was better than that.

Thank you. I'm not saying she's Daenerys Stormborn, but she's at least Sansa Stark. Possibly even Margaery Tyrell.
posted by msalt at 9:58 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Get that person into heavy rotation on Fox News, stat.

I dunno, for a PR professional she went on and on for way too long.
posted by msalt at 9:59 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


> I think people should vote for whoever they think is best for the job, and urge others to do the same.

jessamyn's not on the ballot.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:02 AM on March 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


write in
posted by zutalors! at 10:03 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thank you. I'm not saying she's Daenerys Stormborn, but she's at least Sansa Stark. Possibly even Margaery Tyrell.

Those don't make any sense either. It's almost as if this fictional universe has no mapping onto the 2016 election. Except Trump. Trump is Joffery, clearly.
posted by dis_integration at 10:14 AM on March 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


The "let it get so bad there will be revolution" strategy has never helped the avergae joe in any society ever, unless I'm forgetting example.

Once again, I am going to compare Trump to Rob Ford. Rob Ford was an unmitigated disaster. It is hard to imagine a worse mayor, or one who could do more to discredit conservatism. Yet in spite of all this, his toxic, hateful rhetoric as mayor moved the Overton window so far to the right that our charmless phlegmatic aristocrat of a new mayor is overwhelmingly popular mostly because he is pursuing an agenda of making Toronto a harder, meaner place slightly less aggressively than Ford.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:20 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I wonder how Italy's been faring post-Berlusconi.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:25 AM on March 29, 2016


There are two very common results:
1) a revolution that turns ugly, with new forms of repression by the new leaders (who by definition have removed all institutional checks on their power), or
2) the evil people you let take control just cement their control and everything gets worse.


Common, but not universal. And I'm not sure what form an armed revolution could take in the US. We have lots of very serious problems, but we also have quite a ways to go before getting to a situation where widespread civil unrest and actual rebellion would be a realistic possibility. I don't think even a Trump presidency would do it, although it would be several steps further down that path.

I think that most people talking about "revolution" are being somewhat hyperbolic, including Sen. Sanders. He's hardly calling for an uprising of the proletariat or for the stringing-up of the petit bourgeoisie or the nationalization of the means of production (well, arguably the nationalization of the health insurance industry, but that's not particularly revolutionary in the context of global industrialized capitalist countries).

Not to mention, its proponents are taking the laziest possible approach to pursuing political goals—one that involves doing exactly zero of the actual legwork that's required at all levels of government to actually get shit done.

Show your work, please. This assumption that supporters of Sen. Sanders are keyboard warriors who emerge, cicada-like, every four years and then skulk back to our basement cocoons is unwarranted, it's offensive, and it's indicative of a mindset that assumes that "realistic" political action only occurs within the context of internal Democratic Party machinations.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:29 AM on March 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


Serious question - what was the medium-term result for the peasantry and petit bourgeoisie of the French Revolution? Obviously, there was a lot of unpleasantness involved, but was the average citizen better off, say 10-15 years on?

Yes, I know it's too soon to tell.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:38 AM on March 29, 2016


10-15 years after 1789 puts you in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars so -- probably not?

Larger point, though: I think we have often taken the US and French Revolutions as the archetypes of "good" / relatively successful revolution and "bad" / violent, messy, unpredictable revolution, respectively. I think that makes a lot of sense in the context of early modern / Enlightenment / cusp-of-industrial-era revolutions, but not much sense in the industrial era and even less sense now.

It's as if we tried to explain the rise of Uber using a model of technological change based on analysis of the invention of the cotton gin. Kind of interesting but probably limiting and ultimately not particularly helpful or explanatory.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:52 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


This assumption that supporters of Sen. Sanders are keyboard warriors who emerge, cicada-like, every four years and then skulk back to our basement cocoons is unwarranted

Um, I specifically referred to the "let it get so bad there will be revolution" types, so any conflating of those blinkered dumb-asses with garden-variety Bernie Sanders supporters is entirely on you.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:53 AM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Um, I specifically referred to the "let it get so bad there will be revolution" types, so any conflating of those blinkered dumb-asses with garden-variety Bernie Sanders supporters is entirely on you.

That's fair. I apologize.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:56 AM on March 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


More fun with Trump's embattled campaign manager Corey Lewandowski! The lawyer defending him on his assault charge resigned as a US attorney after an incident where he bit a stripper.
posted by msalt at 10:58 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]




Speaking of digital activism, as more and more of traditional communication and outreach infrastructure moves online, I hope that one day (maybe even this year) the term "keyboard warrior" will no longer be derogatory, but rather a reflection of how much of our lives today revolve around technology.

Several ways in which I've seen online activism translate into real gains (this is Sanders-centric, maybe a Clinton supporter can add their perspective as well):
  1. Phonebanking is now possible solely via a computer, using phonebanking software and Google Voice. My girlfriend and I were happily dialing WA and HI voters last Friday at home in our underwear (I even had a beer).
  2. Crowdfunding has really changed the way people understand and are comfortable with funding, i.e., contributions can have a big impact when done at scale. I strongly suspect that the emergence of Kickstarter and its brethren (e.g., Patreon) are at least partly responsible for Sanders' donors embracing ActBlue the way they have.
  3. And social media continues to be a viable and powerful alternative to traditional media outlets. The /r/sandersForPresident subreddit alone is probably responsible for a good chunk of online and physical activism.
posted by kyp at 11:02 AM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


>HRC’s Appalling Mark Kirk Endorsement Now Comes with Donald Trump

It's weird and bad that the Human Rights Coalition endorsed Kirk, for sure, but let's avoid the initials HRC until Hillary Rodham Clintion isnt' running for president, K?
posted by msalt at 11:02 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


No worries, tivalasvegas. (Jesus, this thread is killing my browser. Need. New. Election. Thread.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:04 AM on March 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Gross. Friggin' Human Rights Campaign. They're David Brooks if he were gay and an organization. I mean, I appreciate that they have a strategy to be non/bi-partisan and build support for gay rights across the political spectrum, but at this point it's just not okay to pretend that the GOP might potentially be more nice to us if we just suck up to them a little bit more.

Also as someone who cares about human rights broadly, I've always found it kind of offensive that their name basically coopts and narrows the concept of human rights to "gay marriage and workplace protections for LGBTQ people". Ugh, ugh, ugh.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:08 AM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's weird and bad that the Human Rights Coalition endorsed Kirk, for sure, but let's avoid the initials HRC until Hillary Rodham Clintion isnt' running for president, K?

It is easy enough to read the links.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:29 AM on March 29, 2016


In context it seems clear which HRC it is.
posted by zutalors! at 11:29 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


It is easy enough to read the links.

Previous to this comment there have been 31 instances of 'HRC' appearing in this thread, with only the last 4 (counting 3 meta references) referring to the Human Right Coalition. All the rest are about Hillary Rodham Clinton. I think msalt's was a reasonable request.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:41 AM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Several ways in which I've seen online activism translate into real gains (this is Sanders-centric, maybe a Clinton supporter can add their perspective as well):

1. Phonebanking is now possible solely via a computer, using phonebanking software and Google Voice. My girlfriend and I were happily dialing WA and HI voters last Friday at home in our underwear (I even had a beer).

2. Crowdfunding has really changed the way people understand and are comfortable with funding, i.e., contributions can have a big impact when done at scale. I strongly suspect that the emergence of Kickstarter and its brethren (e.g., Patreon) are at least partly responsible for Sanders' donors embracing ActBlue the way they have.

3. And social media continues to be a viable and powerful alternative to traditional media outlets. The /r/sandersForPresident subreddit alone is probably responsible for a good chunk of online and physical activism.
I think a lot of this was actually well underway in 2008. At least, Obama did a huge amount of online fundraising, I used an online dialing program to make calls in 2008, and the Obama campaign made a lot of use of social media. I don't think they specifically organized on Reddit, which I wasn't even aware of in 2008, but to be honest, I think the Sanders' campaign's tight relationship with Reddit might be a mixed bag. It makes for a campaign that resonates a lot with young people but is pretty off-putting for older people who aren't really into Reddit culture.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:44 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Correction: Human Rights Campaign. This thread has apparently gotten too unwieldy for comment editing.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:48 AM on March 29, 2016




I'm a big solid meh on debate-setting complainery. It's like the kabuki theatre that happens around judicial nominee process arguments, everyone dredges up pullquotes and clips from when the other party was in majority/in minority and was arguing GIVE NOMINEE X AN UP OR DOWN VOTE / THIS NOMINATION IS NOT OK FOR REASONS. They all do the flip-flop and no actual voters' minds are ever changed.

What would be better is if the parties actually set up the debates and debate rules beforehand, kept them consistent across cycles and imposed some kind of tangible penalty (like taking away delegates) for candidates who didn't attend. It seems like the candidates and the media negotiate all this stuff ad hoc and I don't think the system is particularly good at serving the electorate (or the rank-and-file party members).
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:17 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


In this thread it's not "easy enough to read the link," at least, not for me. When I go to click a link, I first have to figure out if it's above the place it displays, or below it, then I have to figure out how many lines above or below it is -- a value anywhere from 1 to 5 lines. This behavior is getting worse as the thread grows. I agree that a new one would be good, but I don't know what major event would justify one.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:20 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think a lot of this was actually well underway in 2008. At least, Obama did a huge amount of online fundraising, I used an online dialing program to make calls in 2008, and the Obama campaign made a lot of use of social media. I don't think they specifically organized on Reddit, which I wasn't even aware of in 2008, but to be honest,

Yea, I think #3 (social media) is really what ties #1 and #2 (and #whatever) together. You can build all the tools you want, but at the end of the day people need a means to organize. Twitter is great for ad-hoc conversations, but the lack of structure to those conversations holds it back from realizing their full organizing potential. I think Reddit fills that void surprisingly well.

I think the Sanders' campaign's tight relationship with Reddit might be a mixed bag. It makes for a campaign that resonates a lot with young people but is pretty off-putting for older people who aren't really into Reddit culture.

I agree, although I think the ratio in that mixed bag is decidedly positive, IMO. Most older Sanders people that I've talked to don't even know what Reddit is.

With regards to Reddit culture, because of subreddits, I'd argue that Reddit is more a collection of fiefdoms that have both unique subcultures and some shared cultures; much like the real world. There is a very real and toxic element on the site (also like the real world), but I'm encouraged from what I've seen:
  • Like most other social media sites including MetaFilter, Reddit is a diverse platform that continues to evolve towards a higher equilibrium
  • Good and responsible subreddit moderation is creating a lot of spaces that try very hard (and mostly succeed) at being toxin-free
posted by kyp at 12:21 PM on March 29, 2016


I assumed the link-jumping behavior was a test to make sure the commenters are increasingly sober as the threads get longer and, inevitably, weirder
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:23 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I get your drift, Apocryphon. And I do think lots of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. But there's no real reason to wait for her to succeed or fail before taking the basis and momentum of the Sanders campaign and to attempt to turn it into an organized base that has the goal of changing the policy orientation of the Democratic party. I'm already putting out feelers in my limited circle...

And we get entangled in a few more foreign escapades, but it's not like, full on invasion. So things turn out okay.

I wish you'd rethinkrestate this. I'm pretty sure you do not mean it the way it sounds. I'm guessing you've never seen of pile of blood and flesh that once used to be a human being.
posted by CincyBlues at 12:37 PM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


cjelli: "There's not a generalizable answer that's helpful in other contexts, really, because the short-to-medium term answer is 'life expectancy for men dropped drastically due to the Napoleonic Wars,' which is to say that if you look at the immediate results significant fractions of the peasantry and petit bourgeoisie were dead."

Well, that's fair. I guess where I was going is that while I take it as read that basically all revolutions are disruptive and often highly bad for some people, it seemed an open question whether the French Revolution's overall effects were net positive. Obviously, Bonaparte throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing. Even if a gradual evolution away from despotism were possible, not clear whether that would have been a better path for the average French person.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:01 PM on March 29, 2016


KING: Superdelegates are ripping off voters, placing Clinton ahead of Sanders in states where he actually won more votes

For instance, on Saturday, Sanders won every county in Washington state and won nearly 75% of the vote. It was a drubbing.

Will of the people be damned, the superdelegates in Washington all said they are voting for Clinton, including Gov. Jay Inslee, U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray and U.S. Reps. Jim McDermott, Suzan DelBene, Rick Larsen, Adam Smith, Denny Heck and Derek Kilmer.


This is preposterous. Sanders handily won the state and won every congressional district by a landslide, but the governor, the senators and the congresspeople don’t care. They are firmly against the will of the people in their state.

posted by futz at 1:03 PM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


The fix is in. What can you do?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:30 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I assume the 2.5 million voters comprising Clinton's lead in the popular vote over Sanders are part of the fix?
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:36 PM on March 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Bender 2016.
posted by Wordshore at 1:39 PM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


They are firmly against the will of the people in their state.

I'm not sure if it's against the will of the people, because it's not always an apples to apples comparison. Governors and other elected representatives are chosen by a general electorate (or general electorate in their district), versus a caucus which only has a subset of Democratic voters. About 2.85 million people voted in the '12 gubernatorial election and out of that 1.46 million voted for the democratic governor, while about 230,000 voted in the Democratic caucus. Why do 230,000 people represent the "will of the people" while the 1.46 million who voted for governor do not?
posted by FJT at 1:41 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


The superdelegates in Washington all know Bernie personally from working with him in Congress, and I'm sure they know Hillary personally too. The fact that someone's coworkers like him less -- or think he'd do worse in the general election -- than strangers who see him on TV does not mean his co-workers are wrong. They have better information.

Meanwhile, Bernie is openly calling for super-delegates to switch to him on the theory that he's more electable in November, which has nothing to do with how the Democrats in their states voted. So the high dudgeon about respecting the will of the people is pretty hypocritical.
posted by msalt at 1:43 PM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]



I assume the 2.5 million voters comprising Clinton's lead in the popular vote over Sanders are part of the fix?


Yeah, that.
posted by zutalors! at 1:45 PM on March 29, 2016


FWIW it was a fairly similar blowout in MN for Bernie, and I believe he has the support of only 1 of our super-delegates. So its not like Washington State is all that different.
posted by localhuman at 1:46 PM on March 29, 2016


Apparently Rubio just requested to keep his Alaska delegates rather than releasing them after the campaign suspended (the request was granted). I wonder if he'll do that in each state to help block the first ballot at the convention.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:48 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


So he says! This is merely the first move in his plot to become President-Beyond-the-Wall, if you ask me.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:53 PM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I assume the 2.5 million voters comprising Clinton's lead in the popular vote over Sanders are part of the fix?

Popular vote assigns delegates. Given that the split is only like 31%/26% you would expect to see those Superdelegates split along those lines too.

Of course, "Superdelegates" are by definition undemocratic, so there's that.
posted by mikelieman at 2:10 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty sure you do not mean it the way it sounds.

Again, damning with faint praise. I'm saying that for all that the Obama administration is an improvement over Bush's, American foreign policy has gotten to a point where bloodletting has become mandatory. This is the new normal. We should be appalled by that, and you are right to be. At the same time, I'm cynical that Clinton would be better than Obama given that she herself architected much of his foreign policy.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:11 PM on March 29, 2016


Or is it? Perhaps Rubio used magic to switch faces with someone, and is now currently up at Ramsay Bolton(Trump)'s castle, killing off his delegates.
posted by corb at 2:13 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Courtesy of a reddit post, I came across a website that allows you to easily track your representatives and evaluate their voting records against your personal criteria. Seems nifty:
https://4usxus.com/
posted by kyp at 2:22 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I assume the 2.5 million voters comprising Clinton's lead in the popular vote over Sanders are part of the fix?

That's not how delegates work, but even so, a realistic answer to the larger question depends how many of them had their votes influenced by reporting about (super)delegate counts going into the booth, and by a general process set up by the DNC to give their preferred candidate better and more exposure.

It is pure conjecture to give a precise number on how many were influenced, but I'd bet it would be wrong to say zero, and I'd bet it is closer to a not insubstantial portion.

If Clinton managed to get elected, I'd like to track the career paths of superdelegates who made the "right" decision. I like what Senator Murray has been doing for Washingtonians, but would not be surprised if she and others are angling for cabinet positions.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:30 PM on March 29, 2016


I think the "superdelegates should follow the will of the state electorate" argument could have been viable if the Sanders campaign had articulated that starting in December or February. I suspect they would have if they'd thought they would get this far, but as has been noted repeatedly the campaign has been trying to figure out for the last few months what the hell to do with this car they seem to have caught.

But to start this line of argument just now looks pretty self-serving, and particularly so if the goal is to flip a narrow loss (say 45% - 55%) in the pledged delegate count with the help of the unelected superdelegates that we (Sanders supporters) have been complaining about for the last three months. Now, if it's a virtual tie at the end of the primary/caucus season (say with a margin of less than 2% or so), I guess there may be a case to be made to superdelegates that initiative/momentum/whatever should be taken into account. As I've said in previous threads, a virtually split result will, and should, result in party leaders and elected officials making the final call. I'm okay with that even though it probably would mean a Clinton nomination. Cookie, crumbling, etc.

a lungful of dragon:"...a realistic answer to the larger question depends how many [primary voters] had their votes influenced by reporting about (super)delegate counts going into the booth, and by a general process set up by the DNC to give their preferred candidate better and more exposure."

I agree; this aspect of the superdelegates thing bothers me a lot more.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:34 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


how many [primary voters] had their votes influenced by reporting about (super)delegate counts going into the booth, and by a general process set up by the DNC to give their preferred candidate better and more exposure.

and let's not forget bill campaigning illegally at polling places
posted by entropicamericana at 2:39 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm having a hard time conceptualizing the kind of voter who pays attention to things like superdelegate counts but hasn't been exposed to Sanders enough to make an informed decision about him.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:49 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


If my understanding of the reason the superdelegate system was created is correct, it seems to be working as intended. Not that I think that's a good thing, mind you.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:50 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


and let's also not forget Hillary going to that Chipotle with Huma that one time
posted by sallybrown at 2:50 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm having a hard time conceptualizing the kind of voter who pays attention to things like superdelegate counts but hasn't been exposed to Sanders enough to make an informed decision about him.

All the average voter would have had to do is open up CNN.com, NYTimes.com, etc. on ballot day to see the substantial "lead" she was given even before the first votes were cast. There's no secret sauce, here. Except maybe at Chipotle.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:53 PM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Bernie = spicy red Chipotle sauce
Hillary = smooth green Chipotle sauce
Trump = secret Chipotle sauce contaminated with E Coli
posted by sallybrown at 2:57 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Okay, my imaginary voter sees Clinton's huge reported superdelegate lead and decides there's no need to bother voting in the primary. It's a wash!
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:01 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I agree with a lungful of dragon here -- unfortunately, the way that (super)delegate math has generally been presented gives an unfair advantage to the "establishment" or presumed frontrunner candidate. Obama was, of course, able to overcome this handicap, but it's still one of a number of things in the current setup that make the primary race somewhat unfair.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:01 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jill Stein = that really good taqueria down the street that no one knows about except you
posted by entropicamericana at 3:02 PM on March 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


ted cruz = the mac and cheese that the ladies left out too long at the church social last saturday and everyone who ate it got sick
posted by pyramid termite at 3:09 PM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


John Kasich = just a fillet-o-fish from the corner McDonald's for me, thanks. No mayo.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:14 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ben Carson = "Biblical grain" cereal fortified with extra tryptophan
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:15 PM on March 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


oh god that happened at my church a few years back, except it was tamales.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:15 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


guys i really want tacos now
posted by Existential Dread at 3:17 PM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


If left leaning activists are serious about their characterization of Trump as a Fascist, then they better get serious about the problem of unity.
Not Chicago 1968, but Berlin 1932
posted by y2karl at 3:32 PM on March 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


As I said in a prior comment, I would take the Sanders deep indignation at superdelegates not voting in line with their state if he wasn't simultaneously advocating these two positions:
  1. Superdelegates in states he won should vote for him to reflect the will of the people.
  2. Superdelegates in states Clinton won should also vote for him, because he's the best candidate.
I mean, I would take this whole "subverting democracy" thing more seriously if he wasn't a hypocrite about it.

Also: superdelegates generally cast their vote to whomever won the most pledged delegates. There has never been a race where one candidate won the majority of pledged delegates, and then superdelegates were used to push the losing candidate to the nomination. To have it happen in this election would be unprecedented. If Bernie wins the majority of pledged delegates, he will have no problems.
posted by Anonymous at 3:39 PM on March 29, 2016


I think that the split between the social democrats and the communists in 1932 Germany was probably greater than the difference between Clinton & Sanders.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:42 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I've literally been studying first person accounts of Germany in the early to mid 1930s. I'm getting prepared.

My effort so far has been trying to seed the ground between people I know who support Sanders and those I know who support Clinton. All are unformly and strongly against Trump. But the thought of voting for the other candidate ("Yuck, her? Ms. Wall Street and war?" "Ugh his ideas are ridiculous") is so far proving to be pretty tough. Not many people with me in the middle.

I think Obama is going to be the secret anti-Trump weapon, along with the non-Dem-nominee strongly standing behind the nominee, and (more importantly) the two different Dem camps not being sore losers or sore winners.
posted by sallybrown at 3:42 PM on March 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


This experiment on gender bias out today is pretty amazing.

What they did is poll preferences for Clinton vs Trump. But they primed the results by asking respondents which spouse in their family earned the most money. They asked the priming question before the poll question for half the people and after the poll question for the other half.

Men who were polled first preferred Clinton by 16 points. Men who were polled after the gender priming question preferred Trump by 8 points, a swing of 24 points. That's an amazing result from a threat to masculinity induced by one simple question. It's a purely emotional response that puts into question the entire wisdom of male suffrage. It seems that testosterone poisoning is a fatal flaw.

The magnitude of this experiment result begs for a test of repeatability. I'm not surprised that there is a lot of gender bias out there. I'm surprised that it can be switched on and off in individuals so easily.
posted by JackFlash at 3:46 PM on March 29, 2016 [20 favorites]


Oooh, sallybrown, care to share those first-person accounts of 1930s Germany? I've been hunting for something like that.
posted by stolyarova at 3:46 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think the things that come out of Trump's mouth are going to be the real anti-Trump weapon for anyone to the left of Mitt Romney (and who knows, maybe to the right of him too).

Obama's weighing in won't hurt at all though.

on non-preview, seconding stolyarova's request.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:47 PM on March 29, 2016


Not Chicago 1968, but Berlin 1932

Meh, I think there's a lot of mileage to the Trump-Hitler comparison. But there isn't a lot you can get out of the Weimar - USA comparison. The Weimar Communist party, like the far-right parties, was a revolutionary one, committed to the literal overthrow of the very gov't it sat its members in. It's no surprise that the SPD, the major party that supported the Republic and actually wanted its institutions to survive, didn't want to get cozy with the KPD.

Moreover, the Weimar period was riddled with horrific political violence. Various putsch and coup attempts, and hundreds, HUNDREDS of political murders. Today, a few guys have gotten punched and kicked a bit at Trump rallies. In the Weimar era, you were likely to get shot, or beat to death by an angry paramilitary gang of thugs. Every party had their own paramilitaries, even the SPD, and they all literally murdered each other. We're not divided in that way. If Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters had actually killed each other, maybe we could start making the comparison.
posted by dis_integration at 3:51 PM on March 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


hey, downvote brigading is almost as bad as murder
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:55 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


So far I've been reading Christabel Bielenberg's "When I Was a German" (she was a British woman who married a German man in the 1930s). Next up is Victor Klemperer's two-part "I Will Bear Witness" (a German Jewish man). I've also surfed the Web reading about the White Rose resistance movement.

One frightening thing so far about Bielenberg's account is how easily peoples' internal goalposts moved - from "well this is bad but could be worse" to "well wow this is worse now but it's not that serious yet and that won't happen" to "wow it's gotten really bad and my children's doctor just fled the country because he's Jewish but Hilter won't really go to war" to "fuck it's too late now." The way the culture already had anti-semitism and the Nazis seeded the culture with step by step laws enshrining it meant the privileged people like Bielenberg were walled off from the change. And those with the desire to avoid conflict and danger and social faux pas seemed to freeze in the path of a huge oncoming train.
posted by sallybrown at 3:55 PM on March 29, 2016 [15 favorites]


Re: 1st person Germany accounts. Anthony Beevor's Berlin?
posted by Trochanter at 3:56 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]




how easily peoples' internal goalposts moved

That's what scares me; as I worried upthread, our collective desensitization to political violence and the mainstreaming of hard-right ideology has been accelerating over the last few months, and I'm not sure when the ride will stop, or where we'll get out at when it does.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:07 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


JackFlash, that study is fucking depressing.
posted by Anonymous at 4:17 PM on March 29, 2016


Looks like DWS's challenger for her congress seat has also been denied access to the VAN system by the Democratic Party

This Obama Endorsement Is a Sign Pro-Corporate Democrats Are Getting Nervous
posted by homunculus at 4:20 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


> Here's a lot of info on the email thing:

WaPo: How Clinton’s email scandal took root


Compare And Contrast: Treatment Of Thomas Drake & Hillary Clinton For Having Classified Info
posted by homunculus at 4:35 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


If we're really going to remember Weimar, are we going to look forward to a Corbyn-Trudeau-Hollande alliance to liberate us? Merkel too, for the maximum irony.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:35 PM on March 29, 2016


Speaking of superdelegates, is anyone else bothered by the fact that only one third of superdelegates are elected officials, and a substantial number of the rest are in fact registered lobbyists?

I understand the historical precedent that led to superdelegates, but the sheer number that are elected indirectly is troubling.
posted by kyp at 4:38 PM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


No, because those are people who have done shitloads and shitloads and more shitloads of work to get Democrats elected. They are if anything the purest voice for the Democratic Party as an organization.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:47 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


The problem is when they're more concerned with promoting the Organization rather than the Organization's Mission.
posted by mikelieman at 4:50 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


As if the Organization's mission is in any way at odds with corporate interests and the military industrial complex...
posted by an animate objects at 4:54 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


No, because those are people who have done shitloads and shitloads and more shitloads of work to get Democrats elected. They are if anything the purest voice for the Democratic Party as an organization.

If they are the purest voice, then why bother with pledged delegates at all?

Today, superdelegates comprise 15% of the total delegate count. Non-elected individuals are 2/3rds of the count, so they are about 10%.

If they were 15%, would you find that troubling?
If they were 30%, would you find that troubling?
If they were 50%, et al...
posted by kyp at 4:58 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Remember when Bernie said "I don't care about the emails" and he was lauded for his desire to focus on real issues instead of scandals cooked up by bitter Republicans?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

---------------------

I would love it if some of the Sanders fans could explain to me why it's not subverting democracy when Sanders argues that superdelegates in states Clinton won should vote for him, given he also argues it subverts democracy when superdelegates in states he won cast their vote for her.

----------------

I would also like someone to explain why it is OK to compile lists of the personal information of superdelegates and brigade them.
posted by Anonymous at 5:01 PM on March 29, 2016


I'll propose a deal. If Sanders wins the pledged delegate race and superdelegates overturn the will of the people, I'll join you protesting at the barricades. With gusto. If, however, that doesn't happen and Clinton wins the pledged delegate race based on the will of the voters how about we stop with the "FIX IS IN!!!!!1!!1!!!!1111!eleven" stuff? Deal?
posted by Justinian at 5:06 PM on March 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


Are y'all watching the Republican Town Hall? Don't make me take one for the team.
posted by Justinian at 5:13 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Honestly, I find the current implementation superdelegates troubling, independent of the actual horse race that's going on and/or who they support.

I also recognize it is very difficult to have an impartial conversation about it during the election cycle.
posted by kyp at 5:14 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Chris Hayes is going after Landowski's lawyer on the assault. He's saying she didn't yell, didn't report, so it's not true. I feel almost in tears, what country is this where we allow this to happen to women on this scale. Wisconsin should give Trump zero votes.
posted by zutalors! at 5:14 PM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Thanks for clarifying, Apocryphon. I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not when you said: And we get entangled in a few more foreign escapades, but it's not like, full on invasion. So things turn out okay.

I just wanted to understand your intent. We're pretty much in agreement and especially so on the point regarding Clinton being more hawkish than Obama.

Been thinking of the war of my generation today and so I'm a bit touchy. War is fucked up and we shouldn't be too casual about it.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:14 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


If they are the purest voice, then why bother with pledged delegates at all?

Originally they were more or less forced on the parties by law. Even it were legally possible to avoid now, it's probably functionally impossible to do given popular expectations.

If they were 15%, would you find that troubling?
If they were 30%, would you find that troubling?
If they were 50%, et al...


Not in the slightest. I've noted here before that I think primaries are stupid and wrong.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:15 PM on March 29, 2016


Take one for the team and report back, Justinian!

Good luck. We're all counting on you.
posted by Salieri at 5:16 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I sort of hate the superdelegates, too, for what it's worth, and I would be completely livid if the pledged delegates went for Bernie and the superdelegates tipped it for Hillary. If that happens, I will be out on the street protesting right along with you. But I bet the Democrats are feeling pretty smug about the superdelegate system watching the Republican race right now.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:20 PM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Are y'all watching the Republican Town Hall?

fuck no
posted by indubitable at 5:20 PM on March 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Not in the slightest. I've noted here before that I think primaries are stupid and wrong.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. What's your reasoning? I'm not looking to debate, I just want to understand.
posted by kyp at 5:23 PM on March 29, 2016


yea on the one hand, superdelegates is a shitty process. On the other, the party needs to produce a nominee. It's a nomination, not an election. The ethical thing to do is go with the popular vote candidate and I do think that's what'll happen if Bernie pulls it out and comes in way ahead.
posted by zutalors! at 5:23 PM on March 29, 2016


Chris Hayes is going after Landowski's lawyer on the assault. He's saying she didn't yell, didn't report, so it's not true.

Lewandowski's lawyer being that US Attorney who lost his job after biting a stripper. I swear I must have absorbed that one through osmosis, because I grew up in Florida around that time and this is exactly the sort of thing my parents would have brought up as professional gossip. Adolescent me did not understand why someone would bite a stripper. I'm a lot older now, but I'm afraid I still don't understand.
posted by indubitable at 5:27 PM on March 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm watching the town hall. A member in the audience asked Cruz what was his greatest weakness, and Cruz jokes about how people in job interviews always answer that they're TOO dedicated and driven. And then he immediately says he's TOO dedicated and driven.
posted by mochapickle at 5:27 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'll start watching the Town Hall. But I had to watch Hayes on Sarandon's comments last night. Man, that was some stupid. Leninist dialectics? What?
posted by Justinian at 5:27 PM on March 29, 2016


Letters and Politics had a good inside-baseball take on the Republican dynamics today. They had an hour long interview with McKay Coppins, who has written about this stuff, apparently.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:37 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yea. She was grinning about the Trump revolution. I saw Sarah Silverman's comments and they were fine. It's fine to prefer someone, but grinning about a revolution (not the Sanders voting revolution) is gross.
posted by zutalors! at 5:38 PM on March 29, 2016


when Sanders argues that superdelegates in states Clinton won should vote for him...

Superdelegates in states Clinton won should also vote for him, because he's the best candidate.


Could Pepperidge Farms remember to post a link to Sanders or his spokesperson actually saying these things? Because I haven't heard them saying that, and it sounds like another "we're targeting white states" canard.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:41 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Fantastic. CNN only lets you watch a few minutes if you don't subscribe to cable. Booooooo.
posted by mochapickle at 5:43 PM on March 29, 2016


Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. What's your reasoning?

Three things.

First, it's one of those [melgibson]FREEEEEE-DUM[/mel] things where parties, being private organizations and not part of the government, should be able to use whatever methods they want to decide who carries their party label.

Second, I like parties, and primaries (and related changes) were brought in to weaken them. The idea in the progressive era was that parties were standing in between an interested, concerned, and informed electorate and control of the government, which is fine except that it turns out that the electorate isn't particularly interested or concerned and it sure as hell isn't informed (or interested in becoming so). I throw in with Schattschneider's famous line that political parties created democracy and that modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties. Likewise there's a string of research showing how if you give a damn about policy and want government to care about policy, what you need is party competition.

Third, my sense -- and this is just my sense and not something there's research about AFAIK -- primaries mean that elected officials have to keep going back to the voters, or at least a narrow slice of voters, for their jobs, and that they always have to worry about being primaried and don't really have to worry very much about what their party leaders or party-organization leaders think about them. This means we miss out on lots of boring policies where there's fairly broad consensus at the elite level, and there's nobody to force elected officials to act like grownups.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:44 PM on March 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


If any other Democratic candidate said "we'll do better outside the Deep South" they'd be jumped all over for dogwhistling.
posted by zutalors! at 5:44 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Could Pepperidge Farms remember to post a link to Sanders or his spokesperson actually saying these things? Because I haven't heard them saying that, and it sounds like another "we're targeting white states" canard.

Sanders surprises with controversial superdelegate strategy.
So, Rachel asked again whether he might try to convince superdelegates to side with him, even if he’s behind in pledged delegates. Sanders said he and his campaign are “going to do the best we can in any and every way to win,” but he still avoided comment on the specific approach he’s prepared to take.

So, Rachel asked again. For those who missed it, this was the exchange that stood out.

MADDOW: I’m just going to push you and ask you one more time. I’ll actually ask you from the other direction. If one of you – presumably, there won’t be a tie – one of you presumably will be behind in pledged delegates heading into that convention. Should the person who is behind in pledged delegates concede to the person who is ahead in pledged delegates in Philadelphia?

SANDERS: Well, I – you know, I don’t want to speculate about the future and I think there are other factors involved. I think it is probably the case that the candidate who has the most pledged delegates is going to be the candidate, but there are other factors.
posted by Justinian at 5:46 PM on March 29, 2016


Holy fuck, Ted Cruz is great on "Why should women vote for you." God this is terrifying. Lyin' Ted is right. I now understand how someone who has no friends gets elected to national office.
posted by sallybrown at 5:50 PM on March 29, 2016


Thanks ROU_Xenophobe, that's insightful. Makes me want to create an FPP that discusses parties and first-past-the-post voting independent of the current race, which I may do at some point.
posted by kyp at 5:54 PM on March 29, 2016


'My favorite food, in all the world, is cheese.'

Goddamn you, Ted Cruz, you cheesy stopped clock.
posted by box at 5:55 PM on March 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


'School choice is the civil-rights issue of the 21st century.'

Yeah, later, Ted.
posted by box at 5:57 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


care to share those first-person accounts of 1930s Germany? I've been hunting for something like that.

This is a great and very readable book on the subject:
The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town 1922-1945
by William Sheridan Allen

Does what it says on the label.
posted by msalt at 5:58 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I now understand how someone who has no friends gets elected to national office.

I gleaned this from the interview I just posted: apparently Ted does have a few friends. In his defense, they will speculate that his perceived unlikeability and awkwardness is just a pronounced insecurity, being someone from a relatively working class background among Ivy Leaguers, senators and other elites. Not sure I buy that, but FYI. Also apparently Ted was a rock star college debater and has thought he's on some kind of providential trajectory since early in life.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:59 PM on March 29, 2016


There's also his comments on CNN's State of the Union.
TAPPER: What is that path to victory, sir? Because, as you know, you really need to score landslide victory after landslide victory in order to overtake her when it comes to the pledged delegates.

SANDERS: Well, I think there are two aspects to it, Jake.

As you have just indicated, the last five -- we have won the last five out of six contests, all of them in landslide victories. What we have said from day one is, the South is the most conservative part of America. We did not do well there. Secretary Clinton gained a lot of delegates. No debate about that.

We're out of the South. We're heading to the West Coast, which is the most progressive part of America. We think we're going to do very well there. But in addition to that, in terms of superdelegates, a lot of superdelegates have pledged to Secretary Clinton.

But I think when they begin to look at the reality, and that is the we in poll after poll are beating Donald Trump by much larger margins than is Secretary Clinton -- in your own CNN last poll, we were 20 points ahead of him. In the last national poll, we actually beat Secretary Clinton by a point. We started 50 points behind.

I think the momentum is with us. A lot of these superdelegates may rethink their position with Hillary Clinton. A have not yet declared. And then you have got superdelegates who are in states where we win by 40
As you can see from this transcript and the other article, Sanders is making two points. 1) Superdelegates in states he won by 40 or 50 points should support him. And 2) Superdelegates currently supporting Clinton should flip to him when they see he is doing better in the General. I think any reasonable reading of his comments supports that.
posted by Justinian at 5:59 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


The problem with pander-y cheese answers is cheese is so damn good. Even Lyin' Ted could be telling the truth about his love of cheese.
posted by sallybrown at 5:59 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think any reasonable reading of his comments supports that.

Oh, sure, but *that* is not the same as "supers in states that Clinton won should vote for me," which was the original claim here.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:06 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump is wiggling his way out of this Michelle Fields thing. Even after suggesting the pen she was holding could have been a bomb.

"I stick up for people and I don't want to ruin someone's life. You know, when I owned Miss Universe..."

The crowd is laughing, clapping, eating out of his hand.
posted by sallybrown at 6:11 PM on March 29, 2016


If you want some real cognitive dissonance re Ted Cruz, I listened to a bbc profile of him and apparently his favorite movie is The Princess Bride, and he has literally memorized the entire movie, and used to have parties where he and his friends would re-enact the movie.
posted by skewed at 6:18 PM on March 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


If you want some real cognitive dissonance re Ted Cruz, I listened to a bbc profile of him and apparently his favorite movie is The Princess Bride, and he has literally memorized the entire movie, and used to have parties where he and his friends would re-enact the movie.

He probably thinks Count Rugen is the hero.
posted by dis_integration at 6:20 PM on March 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


he has literally memorized the entire movie, and used to have parties where he and his friends would re-enact the movie

Okay, y'all need to stop. Between this and the cheese, you're making me almost like this creep, and that will not stand.

Maybe "like" is the wrong word. Yeah, it's definitely the wrong word. What's a word that means "feel approximately 0.002% less loathing than I did half an hour ago"? There has to be something appropriate in German.
posted by Salieri at 6:23 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump totally ignores a question from the cop who was shot fifteen times at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin to talk about ISIS. The cop was asking about tolerance.
posted by zutalors! at 6:23 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


'Excuse me' is a good look for him, though.
posted by box at 6:26 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]




So, I got a bit curious about what it would look like if the superdelegates did indeed "represent the will of the people". Taking that to mean the superdelegates would be assigned in the same proportion as pledged delegates, and being maximally generous to Sanders by assigning any fractional delegates to him, I get this (using The Green Papers count of delegates by state):

Alabama (7): Clinton superdelegates: 5, Sanders superdelegates 2
Alaska (4): Clinton superdelegates: 0, Sanders superdelegates 4
American Samoa (5): Clinton superdelegates: 3, Sanders superdelegates 2
Arizona (10): Clinton superdelegates: 5, Sanders superdelegates 5
Arkansas (5): Clinton superdelegates: 3, Sanders superdelegates 2
Colorado (12): Clinton superdelegates: 5, Sanders superdelegates 7
Democrats Abroad (4): Clinton superdelegates: 1, Sanders superdelegates 3
Florida (32): Clinton superdelegates: 21, Sanders superdelegates 11
Georgia (15): Clinton superdelegates: 10, Sanders superdelegates 5
Hawaii (10): Clinton superdelegates: 3, Sanders superdelegates 7
Idaho (4): Clinton superdelegates: 0, Sanders superdelegates 4
Illinois (26): Clinton superdelegates: 13, Sanders superdelegates 13
Iowa (8): Clinton superdelegates: 4, Sanders superdelegates 4
Kansas (4): Clinton superdelegates: 1, Sanders superdelegates 3
Louisiana (8): Clinton superdelegates: 5, Sanders superdelegates 3
Maine (5): Clinton superdelegates: 1, Sanders superdelegates 4
Massachusetts (25): Clinton superdelegates: 12, Sanders superdelegates 13
Michigan (17): Clinton superdelegates: 8, Sanders superdelegates 9
Minnesota (16): Clinton superdelegates: 6, Sanders superdelegates 10
Mississippi (5): Clinton superdelegates: 4, Sanders superdelegates 1
Missouri (13): Clinton superdelegates: 6, Sanders superdelegates 7
Nebraska (5): Clinton superdelegates: 2, Sanders superdelegates 3
Nevada (8): Clinton superdelegates: 4, Sanders superdelegates 4
New Hampshire (8): Clinton superdelegates: 3, Sanders superdelegates 5
North Carolina (14): Clinton superdelegates: 7, Sanders superdelegates 7
Northern Marianas (5): Clinton superdelegates: 3, Sanders superdelegates 2
Ohio (17): Clinton superdelegates: 9, Sanders superdelegates 8
Oklahoma (4): Clinton superdelegates: 1, Sanders superdelegates 3
South Carolina (6): Clinton superdelegates: 4, Sanders superdelegates 2
Tennessee (8): Clinton superdelegates: 5, Sanders superdelegates 3
Texas (29): Clinton superdelegates: 19, Sanders superdelegates 10
Utah (4): Clinton superdelegates: 0, Sanders superdelegates 4
Vermont (10): Clinton superdelegates: 0, Sanders superdelegates 10
Virginia (14): Clinton superdelegates: 9, Sanders superdelegates 5
Washington (17): Clinton superdelegates: 4, Sanders superdelegates 13

totals: Clinton 1429, Sanders 1173

... a net gain of 12 delegates for Sanders under the most optimistic of scenarios -- more realistic assignments of fractional delegates actually result in gains for Clinton.
posted by multics at 6:43 PM on March 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


There has to be something appropriate in German.

Die Stinkensmidgenlessen
posted by CincyBlues at 6:55 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Who are, at the end of the day, the superedelegates who are supposed to switch to him ...

The ones he's talking about are supers who have declared for Clinton. I haven't seen him saying the ones in states she won should change that declaration. There are a lot of words being put in his mouth, in order to support claims that he's a hypocrite. That's why I keep challenging the inserted words, because Sanders didn't say them, so they don't make him a hypocrite.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:59 PM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


'My favorite food, in all the world, is cheese.'

Remember "Lemon. Wet. Good."?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:14 PM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


The ones he's talking about are supers who have declared for Clinton.

I think the most reasonable interpretation of his words is that he wants superdelegates to switch to supporting him because he is the most likely to win the general regardless of the results in their state. You really have to bend over backwards to avoid that interpretation.
posted by Justinian at 7:15 PM on March 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I am not clear on what the alternative interpretation here is.

The alternative is a descriptive, psychological claim, rather than a prescriptive claim. What he literally says is that he thinks that some super-delegates will switch over to him owing to momentum. He never actually says that they ought to switch over. And he very carefully avoids saying anything about making a strategic push to convince super-delegates in states Clinton won to vote for him instead.

Now, you might think (as -- on preview -- Justinian seems to think) he's just being cagey here: too sly by half. And I think that's probably right, though I disagree that one has to "bend over backwards" to avoid a prescriptive interpretation of his words. As I said in a previous comment, I would prefer that he just say: The super-delegates should respect the voters in their states. Then let the chips fall as they may. But that said, there is a perfectly obvious interpretation of what he says on which he is not saying that super-delegates in states that Clinton won should vote for him. In fact, that obvious reading is the most literal reading of what he actually says.

And speaking of letting the chips fall where they may, I don't understand this:

... a net gain of 12 delegates for Sanders under the most optimistic of scenarios -- more realistic assignments of fractional delegates actually result in gains for Clinton.

I find it baffling in a couple of ways. First, the AP (as reported on Google with a search of "democratic primary election results) is reporting that Clinton has 1,243 + 469 = 1,712 delegates (pledged and super, respectively) as compared with 975 + 29 = 1,004 delegates for Sanders. By multics' count, proportional assignment of super-delegates would make the current totals Clinton 1,429 and Sanders 1,173. Am I reading that comment correctly? If so, that's a ton more than 12 delegates. It's more like a 400-delegate swing: 300 fewer for Clinton and 100 more for Sanders. And here is my second bit of puzzlement -- how is that supposed to work? Shouldn't any delegate lost by Clinton be a Sanders gain and vice versa? I feel like I'm missing something.

In any event, I imagine Sanders would be pretty optimistic if he were trailing by only 256 delegates total with California still up for grabs. It would look like a pretty close contest, I think.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 7:19 PM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


If so, that's a ton more than 12 delegates. It's more like a 400-delegate swing: 300 fewer for Clinton and 100 more for Sanders.

While I'm not about to swear that my math is correct, the reason for the discrepancy you're seeing (if I understand your bafflement) is that my calculation necessarily only includes superdelegates from states that have already held primaries/caucuses; many of the superdelegates included in that 469 are from states which have not yet voted and so don't figure in my total. I'm assuming that prescience with regard to voter preferences is not among the superpowers granted to high-level Democratic operatives selected for a seat in the Hall of Justice.

Of course, in the real world even if superdelegates were assigned proportionally, it's likely the formula would be fabulously byzantine and vary from state to state, so my calculation is essentially meaningless except as a very naive look at the question.
posted by multics at 7:31 PM on March 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sure, I guess Sanders could simply be making a prediction but come on...
posted by Justinian at 7:33 PM on March 29, 2016


my calculation necessarily only includes superdelegates from states that have already held primaries/caucuses

OH! Yes, how stupid of me. Thanks for the clarification.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 7:39 PM on March 29, 2016


Sure, I guess Sanders could simply be making a prediction but come on...

To be clear: I agree that he is implying (or maybe implicating) that the super-delegates should flip to him for reasons. I also agree that he's doing it knowingly. And I think it's distasteful. But the question was about whether there is an alternative reading of what he has said on the record that doesn't require excessive contortions to detect. :)
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 7:44 PM on March 29, 2016


Best. Reality. Show. Ever.

Except for the violence, misogyny and racism.
posted by My Dad at 9:09 PM on March 29, 2016


Could Pepperidge Farms remember to post a link to Sanders or his spokesperson actually saying these things? Because I haven't heard them saying that, and it sounds like another "we're targeting white states" canard.

Pepperidge Farm actually linked to her original comment in which she discussed the comments and linked to videos of Sanders saying these things. She also is amused that you are referring to the "white states" thing as a canard, when you've provided no indication that it is, in fact, a canard.

You know it is OK for your candidate to not be literally perfect, right? It's OK to say "Yes, these things are problematic, but for these other reasons I am still voting for him."

I am kind of flabbergasted at the attempts to find ways to absolve Bernie of his superdelegate comments. He's made them multiple times.
posted by Anonymous at 9:13 PM on March 29, 2016


Re: the gender bias study linked above, this link to methodology information was buried in the comments.
posted by bardophile at 10:00 PM on March 29, 2016


Chris Hayes is going after Landowski's lawyer on the assault. He's saying she didn't yell, didn't report, so it's not true.

God, I wish Hayes had asked
"Did the stripper yell when you bit her nipple? That time you got arrested? Cause actually, that hurts more than yanking someone's arm."
posted by msalt at 11:15 PM on March 29, 2016


Mod note: Some comments deleted, and an earlier comment reverted to pre-edited state. Folks, don't edit comments for content. If you need to clarify, just add it in a new comment. Use edit for small typos and errors only, as it states clearly on the edit popup window. People do not see edits until they refresh the page, so some will be responding to the original comment and this causes big confusion. Please don't edit comments for content.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:34 AM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Chris Hayes is going after Landowski's lawyer on the assault. He's saying she didn't yell, didn't report, so it's not true.

Much of this "criminal complaint" is highly suspect and seems politically motivated. Fields apparently was asked to back off by the Secret Service a couple of times, and the video shows Lewandowski brushing past her, not throwing her to the ground as she originally (and baselessly) claimed. Apparently the prosecutor bringing this bogus charge is also part of the Clinton campaign. The whole thing seems marinated in politics, not fact.
posted by theorique at 3:07 AM on March 30, 2016


Have you seen the overhead footage? She really does get pulled back pretty hard to my eye. What should have happened here is this scumbag should have apologized and admitted what he did when she complained. If he had, I doubt she would have wanted him prosecuted for it. This isn't really politics to me, it's someone who did commit the crime and is taking no responsibility and showing no remorse. He accused her of making the whole thing up before there was video. Yeah, take him to court. He has shown total and complete disrespect to her.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:59 AM on March 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Pepperidge Farm actually linked to her original comment in which she discussed the comments and linked to videos of Sanders saying these things. She also is amused that you are referring to the "white states" thing as a canard, when you've provided no indication that it is, in fact, a canard.

You did not, and he did not, as detailed in the discussion just above. If you have a link where he says "supers in states Clinton won should vote for me" -- which is what you claim he said -- then you can provide that link. So far, you have not done it.

As for the "white states" thing, you linked to an article where people not connected to the Sanders campaign said the things you ascribed to the campaign. Your claim was that his campaign said those things.

I am aware that Sanders is not perfect. I am not trying to absolve him of anything he's said. I AM trying to absolve him from blame for things other people have said, and for mischaracterizations of things he said.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:26 AM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Much of this "criminal complaint" is highly suspect and seems politically motivated. Fields apparently was asked to back off by the Secret Service a couple of times, and the video shows Lewandowski brushing past her, not throwing her to the ground as she originally (and baselessly) claimed. Apparently the prosecutor bringing this bogus charge is also part of the Clinton campaign. The whole thing seems marinated in politics, not fact.

Assault is a very simple crime that essentially amounts to a threat of bodily harm + ability to cause the harm. Someone doing the "fake punch you in the face" move who doesn't even touch you -- that's assault. Had Lewandowski merely said to Fields "get out of here now or I'll throw you out myself" and rolled up his sleeves - that could be assault. The fact that he actually touched her in a rough manner, all of which is caught on camera, is most definitely assault.

Downplaying it as "well it wasn't that bad" or "well she wasn't really hurt" or "if it was that bad she would have made some kind of noise" or she's only whining about it now because of self-interest" or "I don't like the person charging this crime so I'm going to explain it away" is starting down a path that leads to some very ugly things.

A crime is a crime. The victim of a crime doesn't have to be excessively injured or someone you respect to still be a victim.
posted by sallybrown at 4:44 AM on March 30, 2016 [19 favorites]


And someone refusing to "back off" doesn't give a person permission to assault them, for god's sake.
posted by sallybrown at 4:45 AM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


The specific misdemeanor Lewandowski was charged with was "simple battery," defined in Florida law as:
The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
This is an open and shut case, really. Unless jury nullification gets involved ("But I don't wanna convict that guy of something he 100% did to that girl who deserved it").
posted by sallybrown at 4:59 AM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


> "Donald Trump revokes pledge to support Republican nominee"

This is my shocked face.
posted by kyrademon at 5:00 AM on March 30, 2016


Some abbreviated comments re superdelegates and more:

1) The Democratic party is a private association and gets to set the rules of how that private association is managed.
2) The Democratic party instituted the superdelegate regime because it wants to have a backstop of people who can leverage the direction and policy content of the party platform, among other back-scratchy things.
3) While some Sanders supporters find this to be undemocratic, unfair, unrepresentative, etc... they should not forget that this same Democratic party welcomed and allowed Sanders to run his campaign under a Democratic umbrella. It's quite likely that the Sanders campaign would not have gotten this much traction as a 3rd party or independent effort.
4) Did the power brokers within the Democratic party give the Sanders campaign this open door for altruistic reasons? Probably not. I'm guessing that somewhere along the line there was a calculation that his campaign would be a good GOTV vehicle and bring some fresh blood into the party.
5) Are some establishment Democrats upset that the Sanders campaign is a little more popular than they anticipated? My guess is yes. Are some establishment Democrats quietly happy that this contest is shaking up the party a bit? My guess is also yes.
6) Sanders supporters have two fundamental choices here: one can either choose to work within the party and try to wrest enough power to have a say in party operations and platforms or one can walk away and remain independent or help set up a 3rd party. I suspect that there will be more and more talk of both options post-convention.
7) If the fix is in, and it is, it is in this completely normal sense: The party establishment has a preferred candidate and it shades its actions in that direction. What did people expect--that they would easily jettison a strategic direction with accompanying policy vectors which has been developed over the last quarter century? That they would treat Sanders as a full-fledged Democrat when he has been, at most, a useful ally and a decent person in their caucus?
8) Power is earned. A voice in strategy is earned. Getting a chance to speak at the policy table is earned. Those underlying dynamics are (I think) a big part of the "unspoken" campaign that is taking place right now. Call it a meta-campaign, if you wish.
9) There are real cracks in the party. The party establishment is a bit isolated (some might say delusional) in its assessment of the political ground. That's one reason why down ticket races have been less successful in recent years. If the party establishment is wise--and there are a large number of smart folks in the party--then the "after-action report" on this campaign will cause some shifts in party organization and policy orientation. That would be a good thing.
10) Sanders supporters need to think about "what comes after" for both possible scenarios: victory or defeat in this primary campaign. So do establishment politicians and party operatives.
11) The Republican party is in shambles. We all know this. Are we Democrats (and also those Sanders supporters who might be, for the moment, considering a longer-term affiliation with the Democratic party) going to let this opportunity pass by?
12) There needs to be a lot of compromise within the party over the next few years to be able to seize this historic moment. We have a chance to kill the Reagan Revolution. Really. But it'll require the identity politics wing of the party, and the economic New Dealer wing of the party, and the party establishment itself to come together, rethink the coalition needed to bury the Reagan legacy which has done incredible damage to our nation over the past 35 years.
13) The current system is corrupt and that corruption mostly is associated with how money flows in politics. No one in their right mind thinks that corruption can be rooted out completely--I mean, this is politics after all. But we can realign the system to be more equitable for all--not only with respect to how the party operates but even more importantly, by embracing a set of policies which are good and benefit the nation as a whole.
14) It will not be easy and their will be a lot of rancor. But it can be done if we thicken our skins a little bit and rise to the occasion. The next ten years or so will tell the tale.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:32 AM on March 30, 2016 [24 favorites]


A prosecutor generally has discretion in whom he decides to charge. And a reporter scrum generally has jostling and bumping as journalists and cameramen jockey for position.

Why has this particular case of "assault" bubbled to the top of the priority list? Purely politics.
posted by theorique at 6:00 AM on March 30, 2016


Because it's a flagrant example of battery by a candidate's employee caught on camera. To attribute this to Clinton, and to view this as some kind of injustice, are ridiculous.
posted by sallybrown at 6:02 AM on March 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


Why has this particular case of "assault" bubbled to the top of the priority list? Purely politics.

Straw breaks camel's back, film at 11.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:03 AM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


... "Jostling"? Is that what assault is being called now?
posted by kyrademon at 6:22 AM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton is in league with a Breitbart reporter now? Ok sure.
posted by zutalors! at 6:24 AM on March 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


MRA and Gamergater Mike Cernovich sides the the woman's assaulter? Color me shocked. And now I need to scrub my browser history.
posted by Roommate at 6:27 AM on March 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


She clearly has a pen! Why would a journalist have a pen? CONSPIRACY!
posted by Artw at 6:48 AM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


*Vulcan eyebrow lifted*
posted by y2karl at 7:00 AM on March 30, 2016


She clearly has a pen! Why would a journalist have a pen? CONSPIRACY!

Trump literally said the pen could've been a small bomb. Also she could've used it to squirt ink on Trump, ruining one of his suits.
posted by dis_integration at 7:05 AM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


They're mightier than swords!
posted by Artw at 7:08 AM on March 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


... "Jostling"? Is that what assault is being called now?

The point is, there's no actual assault or battery caught on video. If what happened on the video is assault, then the police should arrest thousands of fans out of a crowd leaving a baseball game because people in close-packed crowds bump into each other.

Fields blatantly lied about being pushed to the ground and everything else. She's obviously making a pitch for her 15 minutes of fame via the reflected light from the Trump circus (and it's going poorly).
posted by theorique at 7:10 AM on March 30, 2016


I thought you were exaggerating, but no. Wow.

I meant literally literally, not figuratively: Trump: Pen could have been little bomb.
posted by dis_integration at 7:19 AM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Nate Silver: It's Really Hard to Get Bernie Sanders 988 More Delegates. Basically, it's possible, but he has to win almost all the upcoming primaries, and he has to win California, Wisconsin and Indiana by a lot.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:22 AM on March 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Rubio's trying to hold onto his delegates, presumably to try and block Trump.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:05 AM on March 30, 2016


This Obama Endorsement Is a Sign Pro-Corporate Democrats Are Getting Nervous

"But Wasserman Schultz is more than anything a creature of the pro-corporate Democratic Party establishment. She has been accused of using her position as DNC chair to favor Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary, including by scheduling low-profile debates on weekend nights. Her opposition to a medical marijuana initiative in Florida and sponsorship of a failed internet censorship bill in Congress have angered progressives, as have her ties to corporate money."

"More recently, Wasserman Schultz sponsored a bill that would severely hamper the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s proposed regulations for payday lenders. The bill would pre-empt the CFPB rule in favor of state laws like Florida’s, an industry-backed model that permits borrowers to take out an average of nine payday loans a year at an interest rate of 278 percent."

posted by jeffburdges at 8:17 AM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


In a few minutes the prosecutor (Mike Freeman) in the Jamar Clark situation in Minnesota will announce whether or not charges will be filed against the officers. Protestors had been pressing to get video from the scene released. Freeman is going to show 3 pieces of video. One of the videos is from an ambulance, one is from a cell phone, and I'm not sure where the 3rd video is from. Apparently originally there was going to be a grand jury that handled things, but Freeman decided instead (I believe after protests) to have more transparency, to make the decision himself. Grand Jury proceedings would be secret.

I know Hillary Clinton has been receptive to these matters and has met with the mothers of black men killed by police. Bernie has obviously been involved in civil rights matters like these for decades. Trump and Cruz? I haven't heard anything specific, just generalized coming down on the side of law enforcement. Live video here, and it appears MSNBC has made the brave decision to stop 24/7 Trump coverage to show the decision.
posted by cashman at 8:30 AM on March 30, 2016


Freeman's decision to forego the grand jury gave me some hope, but this press conference is pretty much destroying that. Another day, another murder blessed by the justice system, here.
posted by sallybrown at 9:04 AM on March 30, 2016


And let me make clear: I'm not saying that the facts Freeman is announcing qualify as a murder. I've gotten to the point where I straight up believe he and/or the police officers involved are lying about what happened and what the evidence shows. I'm not happy to have reached this point but that's where I am.
posted by sallybrown at 9:08 AM on March 30, 2016


Fields blatantly lied about being pushed to the ground and everything else.

That's just parroting the Breitbart/The_Donald/etc line, which...c'mon. And Cernovich as the supporting source? In any case, it's utterly unsurprising that they're the ones who are actually lying. Here's what Fields actually said:
Trump acknowledged the question, but before he could answer I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken.

The Washington Post’s Ben Terris immediately remarked that it was Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who aggressively tried to pull me to the ground.
And from the audio tape, according to Politico:
The recording reportedly captures Fields’ question, and the voice of allegedly Lewandowski saying “excuse me.” Then a sound is heard and Terris asks Fields if she is OK.

“I can’t believe he just did that that was so hard. Was that Corey?” Fields reportedly asked Terris. Terris replied yes, and asked, “what threat were you?”

“He literally went like this and was grabbing me down,” Fields said, according to Politico. “I don’t even what to do [about] what he just did to me. Oh my God, that really spooked me that someone would do that.”
And from Terris' reporting:
I watched as a man with short-cropped hair and a suit grabbed her arm and yanked her out of the way. He was Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s 41-year-old campaign manager.

Fields stumbled. Finger-shaped bruises formed on her arm.

“I’m just a little spooked,” she said, a tear streaming down her face. “No one has grabbed me like that before.”
She took my arm and squeezed it hard. “I don’t even want to do it as hard as he did,” she said, “because it would hurt.”
She's obviously making a pitch for her 15 minutes of fame via the reflected light from the Trump circus (and it's going poorly).

Seems like getting news about women being assaulted from infamous misogynists/harassers and their enablers isn't the best idea.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:20 AM on March 30, 2016 [22 favorites]


theorique: The point is, there's no actual assault or battery caught on video. If what happened on the video is assault, then the police should arrest thousands of fans out of a crowd leaving a baseball game because people in close-packed crowds bump into each other.

It's a good thing, then, that battery is defined in law as an intentional act. I guess you missed above, where sallybrown quoted for us the relevant language:
The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
Are you unable to grasp that distinction, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:47 AM on March 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg and Tax Collector Anne Gannon are also part of Clinton’s Florida team. (source)

Aronberg is the State Attorney who charged Lewandowski.
posted by theorique at 9:55 AM on March 30, 2016


Nate Silver: It's Really Hard to Get Bernie Sanders 988 More Delegates. Basically, it's possible, but he has to win almost all the upcoming primaries, and he has to win California, Wisconsin and Indiana by a lot.

Yea, the recent wins and the math have gotten a lot of supporters energized, and I'm hopeful for big pushes, especially in NY and CA. Wisconsin looks like it's going to be a win (latest polls have Sanders ahead) and the long lead time is giving volunteers the time to prep.

Anecdotally, between my partner and I we've received 4 or 5 text messages over the last week about volunteering, and we're going to check that out in between phonebanking.
posted by kyp at 10:00 AM on March 30, 2016


People can both support a candidate and do their jobs at the same time. He is an adult man, not a puppet. He's capable of making mature and responsible decisions about how to do his job. I don't give a toss if he supported Clinton, Sanders, Cruz, Stein, Trump himself, or freaking Deez Nuts. It is not at all surprising that a prosecutor would charge Lewandowski under these circumstances - (1) his behavior 100% satisfies the standard laid out in the statute; (2) the act was caught on camera; (3) the act made national news for several days; (4) it was perpetrated by an employee of a candidate running for President against a member of the press covering that candidate; (5) the person assaulted pressed charges, is fully participating in the investigation, and made very public statements about what occurred and that she would like to see consequences; (6) there have been several nationwide news stories detailing violence at the rallies of this same candidate, and about the candidate making threats against members of the press and calling them awful names.

Aronberg would have to be out of his gourd not to charge in these circumstances.
posted by sallybrown at 10:04 AM on March 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


Wisconsin looks like it's going to be a win (latest polls have Sanders ahead)
Well, ok, but Silver's analysis of how Sanders could get the nomination has him winning Wisconsin by 16 percentage points. He wouldn't just need to win Wisconsin: he would need a massive blowout. The most favorable recent poll has him up by 4 points. FiveThirtyEight still has a 64% chance of a Clinton win. And he would need to win other places, like California, in similar landslides. It could happen, but there's no polling that suggests that it's likely at the moment.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:20 AM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


If there's one thing that this election cycle has proven, it's that polls aren't terribly good at determining potential turnout for younger voters.
posted by zarq at 10:27 AM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, ok, but Silver's analysis of how Sanders could get the nomination has him winning Wisconsin by 16 percentage points. He wouldn't just need to win Wisconsin: he would need a massive blowout. The most favorable recent poll has him up by 4 points. FiveThirtyEight still has a 64% chance of a Clinton win. And he would need to win other places, like California, in similar landslides. It could happen, but there's no polling that suggests that it's likely at the moment.

Yea, no disagreement from me that it'll be an uphill battle, and I hope Sanders supporters are cognizant of that fact. From my own anecdotal information gathering, they seem to be.

I'm optimistic for a few reasons:
  • OMG WE STILL HAVE A CHANCE AT THIS POINT
  • The long lead time for these races is giving volunteers a lot of time to GOTR/GOTV
  • Specifically, for CA, most of his top donors are based in the Bay Area. I know it's a big state but I'm hopeful it translates to both increased funding and volunteering.
posted by kyp at 10:31 AM on March 30, 2016


For the last 40 years, we’ve been preparing for this generation without a future. We’ve weaned and fed them on the idea that life doesn’t get better, that there are no plans to be made, no futures to be had. So that when that reality actually hits, when they inherit the world they’ve now inherited, they’ve been readied for the nothing that lies ahead. There’s no shock of recognition, no violent recoil from the new. There’s just this slow descent into systemic immobility and unreliability.

Strangely, this is the generation that is now making the Bernie Sanders moment. Which, whatever else it may be, is a bid on the promise that the future can be better. Radically better. For the millennials, this is not a promise born from any economic experience. It is a purely political promise, distilled from the last decade and a half of failed protest against neoliberalism and austerity, and some strange phantom of socialism conjured from who knows where.
The Bernie Sanders Moment: Brought to you by the generation that has no future", by Corey Robin. [Crooked Timber thread, with associated comments.]
posted by Sonny Jim at 10:40 AM on March 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


New WI Marquette Poll: Bernie Sanders 49% Hillary Clinton 45%
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:40 AM on March 30, 2016




That post was fascinating, Sonny Jim, mostly because it is so totally contrary to my experience. I work with college students, although not the kind who typically end up as interns at fancy magazines, and they're incredibly careerist. They feel bad and guilty if they don't have their careers totally mapped out when they start their freshman year. They have a huge amount of anxiety about their futures, but they deal with it by relentless, sometimes unrealistic planning, not by drifting aimlessly. And my strong sense is that they're mostly Bernie supporters.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:03 AM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton Knocks Sanders: Americans Can’t 'Hold Out For The Perfect’

Alternate title: "Clinton thinks Sanders is 'perfect'"
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:08 AM on March 30, 2016 [15 favorites]




roomthreeseventeen: "New WI Marquette Poll: Bernie Sanders 49% Hillary Clinton 45%"

New WI Marquette Polls:

Cheese is Good: 96%
Woooooo Packers: 92%
posted by Chrysostom at 11:34 AM on March 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Seriously, it would be great if the mods controlled the snark against anyone who says something nice or good about Sanders.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:36 AM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Uh, that wasn't intended as snark against Sanders or his supporters. It was intended as a Wisconsin joke. Sorry if it came off otherwise.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:37 AM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, that was pretty clearly Wisconsin humor qua Wisconsin humor. I know people are a little frayed at this point but part of helping things not get heated in here is trying to be a little more duck's back about stuff when possible.
posted by cortex at 11:39 AM on March 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


V disappointed that none of the candidates have taken a stand on what's happening with the appeals for the guys from Making a Murderer, which I can confidently say, as a non-Wisconsin resident, is the most important issue facing Wisconsin these days
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:43 AM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


As an Atlanta resident and allergy sufferer, I will vote for whoever cracks down on the god damn pollen.
posted by Fleebnork at 11:45 AM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Only _223_ more days until Election day!
posted by Justinian at 11:46 AM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton means more war (drug and middle east), more "privatization" (theft of public resources), more emphasis on identity politics as a distraction to economic shenanigans, sweeter deals to Wall St. (which you 401k holders will like!), foot dragging and professed ignorance on actual reform in short, Bush III. And no action on the friggen' pollen.
posted by telstar at 11:46 AM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]




Pretty sure that you can't really be said to have "leaked" your own Facebook conversation.
posted by Etrigan at 11:53 AM on March 30, 2016




In short: Bush III

Well, except for the Supreme Court thingy...

Or is this, the return of Bush-Gore: What's the Difference? Vote Nader!!!

I mean, really, Bush III ? Puh-leeze....
posted by y2karl at 11:58 AM on March 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


That twitter post: what, she's going to do something about our "hurting"? Gosh, Hillary, hope it's not action similar to what Libya, Egypt, and Syria got in response to their "hurting".
posted by telstar at 11:59 AM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


And no action on the friggen' pollen.

Right. As compared to Sanders's brilliant strategy for battling allergies, which is to carry around several crumpled up Kleenex tissues in his coat pockets at all times.

Vote Neti/Pot in 2016!
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:59 AM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


A Bernie Sanders Supporter Confronted a Superdelegate — Then Leaked Their Private Conversation

That was an exhausting read.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:01 PM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yes, Hillary Clinton has a secret plan to put Americans out of our misery using drones.

Or maybe we could not do a whole round of this again? I think everyone has pretty well figured out where they stand on Clinton v. Sanders.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:02 PM on March 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


I see Sanders as an unknown. But I know exactly what I'll get with Clinton.
posted by telstar at 12:06 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Neti/Pot is looking better and better every minute...
posted by mikelieman at 12:06 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Kevin Cirilli: Trump Says Abortion Ban Should Carry Punishment for Women
At a taping of an MSNBC town hall to be aired later, host Chris Matthews pressed Trump on his anti-abortion position, repeatedly asking him, “Should abortion be punished? This is not something you can dodge.”

“Look, people in certain parts of the Republican Party, conservative Republicans, would say, ‘Yes, it should,’” Trump answered.

“How about you?” Matthews asked.

“I would say it’s a very serious problem and it’s a problem we have to decide on. Are you going to send them to jail?” Trump said.

“I’m asking you,” Matthews said.

“I am pro-life,” Trump said. Asked how a ban would actually work, Trump said, “Well, you go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places but we have to ban it,” Trump said.

Matthews then pressed Trump on whether he believes there should be punishment for abortion if it were illegal

“There has to be some form of punishment,” Trump said. “For the woman?” Matthews asked. “Yeah,” Trump said, nodding.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:15 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I see Sanders as an unknown. But I know exactly what I'll get with Clinton.

Me too! More or less Obama part 2. Not ideal, sure, but not too shabby.
posted by Justinian at 12:21 PM on March 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


And apparently this is from a transcript from the same town hall:
MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant?
TRUMP: And it hasn't been determined.
MATTHEWS: Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for the abortion decision?
TRUMP: It hasn't. Different feelings. Different people. I would say no.
To be fair to Trump though, this is essentially the position of the rest of the GOP. Rubio, for instance, apparently thinks women should be punished for having an abortion even if they were raped.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:23 PM on March 30, 2016


Do you guys think Trump wakes up at night sweating and wondering how his vanity project got to this point? Like a guy with a fear of heights who agreed to get on the tallest roller coaster in the world without thinking through the consequences... and now all he can do is hang on while the TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK of the cars being ratcheted up the slope grows inexorably louder in his ears?
posted by Justinian at 12:24 PM on March 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


That was an exhausting read.

And frustratingly dumb.

Considering his arguments, one would think Levi Younger would have bothered to learn what the role of a superdelegate is. It's good he's going to be more involved after the election, but perhaps his first task should be to study and understand some basics. Sanders has said that he thinks superdelegates should vote in sync with delegates. But superdelegates are deliberately not tied to the popular vote in their region. They don't represent the will of the local populations. They are in no way obligated to follow the popular vote. And they were created precisely so that the Democrats could ensure they got the candidates they wanted into office, and elections would not be hijacked by Republicans switching sides in open primaries or a Trump-esque fascist fielding a successful campaign. Which is the real problem. .

None of this should be a revelation to anyone who has been paying attention to the *endless* articles about them. Ultimately, the controversy is not that superdelegates are failing to follow the will of the people, but rather that they are party representatives who play any role in the nomination process, at all! Talking about that -- starting a national conversation about that -- might just be helpful. Change opinions and initiate concrete changes to make the system more fair. But instead Younger is giving arguments that make it sound like he doesn't understand the difference between a delegate and a superdelegate.
posted by zarq at 12:26 PM on March 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


why do we always need to be fair to Trump because he's just saying what other people think or whatever? he's 24/7 disgusting. He's also just saying this for the votes. We used to need to be fair to him or not think he's so bad because he has spoken about being pro choice in the past.
posted by zutalors! at 12:26 PM on March 30, 2016


Do you guys think Trump wakes up at night sweating and wondering how his vanity project got to this point? Like a guy with a fear of heights who agreed to get on the tallest roller coaster in the world without thinking through the consequences... and now all he can do is hang on while the TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK of the cars being ratcheted up the slope grows inexorably louder in his ears?

I think he's like I am when I'm on a rollercoaster. Really damn excited and loving every minute of it.
posted by dis_integration at 12:31 PM on March 30, 2016


Oh great, so not only does Trump want to make abortion illegal, but he wants "punishment" for women who have had them.
posted by agregoli at 12:33 PM on March 30, 2016


That "to be fair" was mostly sarcasm. The point is that the modern GOP would make Torquemada look like a lightweight, and we shouldn't be letting them off the hook for how awful they are, seeing as how they'd likely be sending laws to Trump if he gets elected. For instance, here's a writer for the National Review--a publication that devoted an entire issue to telling conservatives how horrible Trump is--saying that women who have abortions should be treated like anyone who commits first-degree murder, potentially including capital punishment. We shouldn't be excusing Trump or the so-called "moderates" for being monsters.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:33 PM on March 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


(Sorry, my preview lagged or something)
posted by agregoli at 12:34 PM on March 30, 2016


Fuck you, Trump. Just, fuck you.
posted by sallybrown at 12:34 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


As we all know, millennials don't care much for Hillary Clinton. That's okay. I'm on the other side of that particular fence, but there's plenty of room for honest differences about her views and whether they're right for the country—differences that I don't think are fundamentally rooted in age.

But there's one issue where I suspect that age really does trip up millennials: the widespread belief that Hillary isn't trustworthy. It's easy to understand why they might think this. After all, Hillary has been surrounded by a miasma of scandal for decades—and even if you vaguely know that a lot of the allegations against her weren't fair, well, where there's smoke there's fire. So if you're familiar with the buzzwords—Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, the Rose law firm, Troopergate, Ken Starr, Benghazi, Emailgate—but not much else, it's only human to figure that maybe there really is something fishy in Hillary's past.

But many of us who lived through this stuff have exactly the opposite view. Not only do we know there's almost literally nothing to any of these "scandals," we also know exactly how they were deliberately and cynically manufactured at every step along the way. We were there, watching it happen in real time. So not only do we believe Hillary is basically honest, but the buzzwords actively piss us off. Every time we hear a young progressive kinda sorta suggest that Hillary can't be trusted, we want to strangle someone. It's the ultimate proof of how the right wing's big lie about the Clintons has successfully poisoned not just the electorate in general, but even the progressive movement itself.
Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest and Trustworthy
posted by y2karl at 12:37 PM on March 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm sort of back to my theory that Trump wants to crush the GOP nomination process out of some very personal sense of vengeance or whatever but has absolutely zero interest in becoming the actual POTUS.

He talked about all the other candidates he (personally!) "forced" out of the race last night like a ten year old bragging about beating Mega Man bosses.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:38 PM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Levi Younger would have bothered to learn what the role of a superdelegate is.

To undermine the democratic process?
posted by entropicamericana at 12:41 PM on March 30, 2016


If Trump loses this year, what are the odds he tries again in 2020? Are we gonna have to deal with this for the next few elections?
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:42 PM on March 30, 2016


If he doesn't, I'm sure there'll be some asshole who thinks he can one-up him.
posted by rifflesby at 12:50 PM on March 30, 2016


If Trump loses this year, what are the odds he tries again in 2020? Are we gonna have to deal with this for the next few elections?

Trump himself is strictly a one-off, I'd bet, and he's past his sell-by date already. But the seventh seal has been opened, and the GOP has seen that its voters have a taste for openly blatant xenophobia with a side of racism and misogyny. Next time, we'll have to deal with someone worse.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:51 PM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest and Trustworthy

I have no doubt she will honestly and trustfully represent her constituents. The problem is that I am not, nor have I ever felt like I was one of them, even when she was a Senator from New York.

Her constituents are the companies who pay her 200k for an hour of her time.
posted by mikelieman at 12:53 PM on March 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump has some kind of inexplicable charisma - beyond his fearmongering and hatemongering - that I think other people won't be able to duplicate. They will definitely try, though.
posted by sallybrown at 12:53 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


yeah, the fever dream of the CEO President will live for at least one more election cycle, next time with less of a dadlike aura of competence, and more shoot-from-the-hip assholery
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:56 PM on March 30, 2016


Patton Oswalt ‏@pattonoswalt 4m4 minutes ago
Based on Trump's Town Hall mini-meltdown & his horrific abortion comments today? I think he wants out. He's realized he wants out.
That's one explanation, I guess.
posted by zakur at 12:57 PM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


So I suppose Trump has just been playing 11-dimensional Russian Roulette all this time?
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:03 PM on March 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


To undermine the democratic process?

The laughable part is that anyone could possibly believe that Presidential campaigns and nominations are in any way a "democratic process." They are a dog and pony show. A farce, put on for the entertainment of the masses.

This country's two major political parties have been manipulating the electoral process by weighting things heavily in their favor in as many ways as they possibly could and at every level from local dog catchers and community boards all the way up to Commander in Chief for decades. Gerrymandering. Voting restrictions. Superdelegates. Heck, in New York State they even created a draconian process for getting on state ballots. The only reason we have checks and balances in place is one party's fear that the other party will walk away with all the marbles.

"Democratic process." Please.
posted by zarq at 1:05 PM on March 30, 2016


(zarq, quoting selectively to avoid wall of text)

Considering his arguments, one would think Levi Younger would have bothered to learn what the role of a superdelegate is. It's good he's going to be more involved after the election, but perhaps his first task should be to study and understand some basics.
...
But instead Younger is giving arguments that make it sound like he doesn't understand the difference between a delegate and a superdelegate.

What I think Younger does understand though is that some superdelegates are superdelegates because they are elected, and because they are elected, they have a perceived obligation to and dependence on the voters. That is, the internal logic an elected superdelegate uses to choose a candidate not only factors in their own opinions and the party directive, but also the will of the voters, because at the end of the day they run the risk of losing their seat.

I don't agree with all the tactics employed to sway superdelegates, especially strong-arm ones. I suspect this particular exchange will only reinforce Metcalfe's opinion of Sanders supporters.

But I do think voters are very much aware that for some superdelegates, the voter factor is an important one, and will use their voices to sway things in their favor.
posted by kyp at 1:06 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Or to put it another way, I disagree strongly with characterizing what most people are doing, i.e., trying to have a respectful and open conversation with elected superdelegates, as dumb.
posted by kyp at 1:11 PM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


> The only thing she hasn't done (as far as I can tell) is call for a total ban on fracking.

Someone should show her this: New Study Confirms Fracking Contamination That The EPA Walked Back On In 2011
posted by homunculus at 1:12 PM on March 30, 2016


I'm sorry, I should have said "to further undermine the democratic process."
posted by entropicamericana at 1:16 PM on March 30, 2016


Trump has some kind of inexplicable charisma - beyond his fearmongering and hatemongering - that I think other people won't be able to duplicate. They will definitely try, though.

I always thought this comment brought up some good points:

I do believe Trump wil play well with certain Midwestern Democrats, the kind of people who have friends that routinely defect to Republicans. I believe they could be uniquely open to defecting to Trump. The reason: when you discuss politics with them, they sound exactly like Trump. The difference between this group and their Republican counterparts is that they admire Clinton quite a bit. But she is decisively not one of them. Sure, Trump has no actual connection to their lives, but he speaks their language fluently.

BTW it's weird that Trump is fluent in this language in spite of his upbringing. The man simultaneously lives in a golden bubble world AND speaks the language of the working class. And none of the values that are typically instilled unto the kids of priveledged schools worked their way in to his mind. His behavior since he showed up as a national celebrity never fit that mold. He's a really interesting guy.


That's one of the reasons why he's such a powerful demagogue, that he's able to bridge the gap between the extremely wealthy and the working class, without being particularly folksy.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:18 PM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


On Sunday, Howard Gutman of The Washington Post argued that Clinton is so uninspiring that her only hope of winning swing states is anti-Donald Trump sentiment. ” Some people like her and many more tolerate her, but virtually no one is enthusiastic about her,” he writes...

“Clinton still talks about glass ceilings rather than gig economies, and everyone has heard her by now, on many occasions,” he writes, calling it the “same pitch, different day” problem.

Gah, doesn’t it remind you of how your ex-wife was always on and on about how she expects you to do half the chores and support her career as much as hers and take care of the children and on and on and on?

Except not, because the day after Gutman wrote yet another entry into no-one-loves-Clinton story, Gallup released a poll showing that actually, her supporters love her more than any other candidate besides Donald Trump, a man who literally expects everyone around him to act like he’s God’s gift.

And yes, Bernie Sanders supporters were polled, and fell about 10 points behind Clinton supporters in the enthusiasm department. Over half of Clinton supporters — 54% — rated themselves as “extremely enthusiastic” or “very enthusiastic.” Only 44% of Sanders supporters could say the same.

Sixty-five percent of Trump supporters are high on enthusiasm, which is unsurprising, given that the man literally has his people making loyalty oaths at campaign events. Sanders and Clinton earn their enthusiasm by asking for, rather than demanding, love.

As anyone with a computer or TV knows,the narrative has been the opposite of what this hard polling data shows. The assumption is that Sanders is the one with the enthusiastic base and that Clinton’s supporters are dragging their feet to the polls. This is why the Sanders mantra has been that high turnout benefits his candidate, even though he actually performs better in caucus states, where turnout is low compared to primary states, where Clinton does better. (Both common sense and research show that the higher demands on people’s time and participation is a barrier to entry in caucus states.)
The strange silence about Hillarymania: Clinton fires up voters more than Bernie does, so why is no one talking about it?
posted by y2karl at 1:18 PM on March 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


That's a great thing, actually. Because it shows that Bernie is just a messenger for issues and policies. He himself is not the endgame. If the Sanders campaign fails, well, those solutions will find a different standard bearer. It shows that the "revolution" isn't a personality cult.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:23 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Important not to hold people to silly things they say in the heat of an intense political battle. But for the diehard BoBers, important moment to remember there's no purism escape hatch from responsibilities of citizenship & politics. And it ain't abt your feelings. If the Bernie campaign is more for year than a social scream therapy, you have to convince yourself that Trump/Cruz in the White House next for years is better or no worse than Clinton. I know very few Sanders supporters who seriously think that.
Josh Marshall on "Bernie or Bust"
posted by y2karl at 1:38 PM on March 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump has no actual connection to their lives, but he speaks their language fluently.

I'm the guy who doesn't have a tv, so I haven't heard him that much, but he sounds like he's been obsessively watching Good Fellas. (Also: Cruz sounds hilarious.)
posted by Trochanter at 1:40 PM on March 30, 2016


Is anyone else getting a little worried about Trump falling short on the first ballot, and then Paul Ryan getting the nom? I could actually see Ryan winning.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:40 PM on March 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


I can't believe that I'm about to say something that reflects well on Paul Ryan, but here goes. I am not convinced that Paul Ryan wants to be president right now. I think he might want to wait until his kids are a little older.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:43 PM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I have no doubt she will honestly and trustfully represent her constituents. The problem is that I am not, nor have I ever felt like I was one of them, even when she was a Senator from New York.

Her constituents are the companies who pay her 200k for an hour of her time.


Your feelings are personal and un-invalidable, but that is literally the opposite of what the article (linked from the article), by a seasoned political journalist who has been covering Hillary for a long time, concluded after decades of investigative reporting.

There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.

The very frustration expressed in the article is that despite this track record, people *feel* negatively about Hillary. Your comment (with no evidence), and similar comments I've seen on people's feeds, that often go hand in hand with completely dismissing (with no evidence) the expertise and credibility of this female journalist is literally part of the phenomenon she is discussing.
posted by Salamandrous at 1:43 PM on March 30, 2016 [22 favorites]


That would be the most insidery, establishmentest outcome possible, and I would love to see the GOP thrust its stinger into its own head in the warp-spasms of that outcome.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:44 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Stars: they're just like us in these epic election threads.
posted by sallybrown at 1:52 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Based on the amount of arm twisting it took to get him to be Speaker, I seriously doubt Ryan has any particular desire be the one trying to herd those cats right now. He wants no blame for this mess, and knows it goes way beyond Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:57 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is kind of why I don't think Warren will ever run for higher office. Given eight years of a Republican whisper campaign about her, and by 2024 the internet leftists will be agreeing on how she's "untrustworthy" and a "tool for corporate interests".
posted by happyroach at 2:03 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's a ludicrously, insultingly simplistic to suggest the reason people on the left may take issue with her is Republican whispers.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:09 PM on March 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Assuming Trump fails, how possible is it for a few delegates to change the rules - offer a process amendment or nominate someone?
posted by corb at 2:09 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


What is an "internet leftist"?

Is that like a "keyboard warrior"?
posted by kyp at 2:09 PM on March 30, 2016


Isn't the smart move for any up and coming Republican right now to just sit it out? Like, get in the bunker, wait for the bombardment to pass, then stumble out blinking into the sunlight like "what hath we wrought?!?" and "what a terrible turn of events that no one could have foreseen, I will fix it!" come next election cycle. Throwing yourself in the dumpster fire at this point is just lose-lose for everyone short of the people who have nothing to really lose, like Mitt Romney. I just don't think Paul Ryan would be willing to do it, though I'm sure he likes being whispered about as the Chosen One who can save the party.
posted by yasaman at 2:11 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sorry, let me clarify. Republican whispers are among the reasons some on the left may take issue. I mean it's simplistic to suggest something as simple as eight years of whispers alone could put Warren where Hillary is now in general with that crowd.

Hillary has a history, good and bad. But it's long and complicated. Strong feelings have developed pro and con. You can't put someone there with eight years of partisan attacks alone. Hillary is someone who's face you could put on currency right now even if she is never President. Warren is a Senator who is tough on banks which is appreciated right after banks fuck up. She isn't an American icon, at least yet.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:18 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Pretty sure that you can't really be said to have "leaked" your own Facebook conversation.

Actually, leaking a conversation in private messages without permission is a pretty big breach of evolving etiquette, usually justified only by a seriously damning admission or threat (not present here.) And a journalist reprinting the exchange with highly biased commentary is a serious bit of ethical malpractice IMHO. It's not surprising though given Sanders supporter Levi Younger's tone:

You’re stealing this for Hillary. And you’re rubbing it in all our faces. If you find these comments “negative” it’s because what you are doing is wrong.

She calmly asks if he's going to stay involved after the election, and he replies:

You better believe it now. Having someone tell you your vote doesn’t matter is enough to insight[sic] a riot.

It's funny to me because this website (US Uncut, whatever that is) clearly sees this as a Bern on the superdelegate, while to me it's emblematic of the obnoxious righteousness of some Sanders supporters.
posted by msalt at 2:19 PM on March 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


The superdelegate thing is getting weird. There have been lots of reports of Sanders trying to flip superdelegates, even to the point of getting a win if he is behind in pledged delegates.

Which is the thing so many Sanders supporters were up in arms about a few months ago (the potential for Clinton to win on superdelegates even if Sanders was ahead in pledged).

Both then and now I think the superdelegates should just push whoever is ahead in pledged delegates over the top. If this were a race like the GOP where someone as toxic as Trump was in the lead, _maybe_ I could support them overturning a pledged delegate lead. But the Democrats are not in that situation, they have two candidates liked by large majorities of the party. They should let the people decide.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:27 PM on March 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Pretty sure that you can't really be said to have "leaked" your own Facebook conversation.

Actually, leaking a conversation in private messages without permission is a pretty big breach of evolving etiquette, usually justified only by a seriously damning admission or threat (not present here.) And a journalist reprinting the exchange with highly biased commentary is a serious bit of ethical malpractice IMHO.


Sometimes I wish I could give comments partial favorites so I don't have to upvote the whole thing. :P
posted by Drinky Die at 2:28 PM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Pretty sure that you can't really be said to have "leaked" your own Facebook conversation.

Actually, leaking a conversation in private messages without permission is a pretty big breach of evolving etiquette, usually justified only by a seriously damning admission or threat (not present here.)


Even aside from the use of the word "leaked", which I was taking exception to, there is a wide gap between your understanding of etiquette and mine, especially as regards communication with an elected official as regards conduct of their public duties.
posted by Etrigan at 2:29 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


There have been lots of reports of Sanders trying to flip superdelegates, even to the point of getting a win if he is behind in pledged delegates.

We just went through that yesterday. It appears that until Sanders is filmed from multiple angles saying that the superdelegates from Clinton-victorious states should flip to him despite the will of the people (mustache twirl) some people won't accept that Sanders has a rather... nuanced... position on superdelegates.
posted by Justinian at 2:42 PM on March 30, 2016 [7 favorites]




That is great news regardless of your candidate.
posted by sallybrown at 2:46 PM on March 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


Unlike this bad news regardless of your candidate: Bernie left off DC ballot.

FWIW, this is so over-the-top villainous that while I know some will believe this is Clinton's personal doing, I find it far more likely that this is yet another DC politics fuck up that will get resolved before the Democratic primary in DC (which isn't until June). But it's terrible regardless.
posted by sallybrown at 2:49 PM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


It looks like California has a really great new voter registration law which requires people who get a driver's license to opt out of registering. If they don't say no, they're automatically registered to vote. It went into effect on January 1st. That's fabulous, and I hope we can convince other states to adopt it.
Unlike this bad news regardless of your candidate: Bernie left off DC ballot.
From what I've heard, that's going to get fixed. There's literally no reason to leave Bernie off the DC ballot. Hillary is heavily favored, and it's not enough delegates to matter very much anyway.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:51 PM on March 30, 2016


Just glanced over at the TV. Headline: Trump open to using nukes on Europe.

What the hell? I don't think I actually want to know because it can't be better than what I'm picturing in my head.
posted by Justinian at 2:56 PM on March 30, 2016 [5 favorites]




Even aside from the use of the word "leaked", which I was taking exception to, there is a wide gap between your understanding of etiquette and mine, especially as regards communication with an elected official as regards conduct of their public duties.

I'd be very curious to hear your take on what admittedly are unwritten rules.
One thing though -- the woman in this article is not elected (the way that Bernie is a superdelegate because he's a Senator).
She's a union member and longtime party volunteer who is Alaska's national precinctperson for the Democratic Party.
posted by msalt at 2:59 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


From what I've heard, that's going to get fixed.

Luckily, they've got plenty of time because DC's Democratic primary is still two and a half months away and, I believe, the absolute last one in the country for either major party, even though this is one of the very few elections where DC voters can have even a tiny impact on federal politics.
posted by Copronymus at 3:01 PM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Wow, I never thought of that. If anybody deserves to jump to the front of the line it's DC.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:05 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well, I was curious about the nuke thing:

The GOP presidential front-runner said he would consider using a nuclear weapon if the U.S. were attacked by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, according to an MSNBC transcript of the interview released Wednesday afternoon.

"Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn't fight back with a nuke?" he said.
When host Chris Matthews asked if the real estate mogul could definitively say he wouldn't use nuclear weapons, he responded: "I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table."

Matthews pressed him, asking if he would consider using nuclear weapons in Europe.

"No, I don't think so," Trump said, but he again said he wouldn't definitively write off the option.


He's also said he wants Japan and South Korea to develop nukes. (In Japan, while Abe might possibly be open to that, and it has been floated in conservative military circles there, it would be by far the most wildly unpopular of all the "pro-military" moves that have happened recently and seems about as likely as Mexico paying for that wall).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:05 PM on March 30, 2016


Even aside from the use of the word "leaked", which I was taking exception to, there is a wide gap between your understanding of etiquette and mine, especially as regards communication with an elected official as regards conduct of their public duties.

Here is the title of this article, which was wildly biased in favor of the guy who made his private msgs public:

"A Bernie Sanders Supporter Confronted a Superdelegate — Then Leaked Their Private Conversation"

So that seems like at least some evidence that his actions are generally considered transgressive.
posted by msalt at 3:07 PM on March 30, 2016


This obsession with superdelegates is overblown. The fact of the matter is that the superdelegates make absolutely no difference except in the unlikely case of overturning the voting in the primaries at the convention. There is a mistaken belief among some that if the superdelegates were allocated according to the proportions of the state primary votes, that Sanders would be doing much better. In fact, though, it would make absolutely no difference at all because the number of superdelegates is allotted to each state by population, the same as the number of pledged delegates in each state.

Currently Clinton is leading Sanders 55% to 45% in pledged delegates. If the superdelegates were assigned proportionally with the voting in the primaries, the results would be precisely the same -- 55% to 45%. You don't need any fancy math to figure this out. The only way that switching superdelegate votes can possibly help Sanders is if the superdelegates vote contrary to the primary results, that is, against the majority vote.
posted by JackFlash at 3:14 PM on March 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


Plus, if Sanders hits the 57% or whatever he needs in pledged delegates in the remaining primaries, that would be such a tremendous surge from his campaign -- and such a total undoing of Clinton's -- that yeah, no duh the superdelegates would switch to him. I have no idea what purpose hassling them about it now serves.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:22 PM on March 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


I have no idea what purpose hassling them about it now serves.

Some voters hold the opinion that by announcing their choice before the convention, superdelegates have an effect on the overall perception of said candidate.

Some voters feel that they can sway the opinion of superdelegates by talking to them and about them.

That is the purpose of voters discussing superdelegates openly and publicly.

Of course, you may feel that their discussion is pointless and will not influence any of the superdelegates. I respectfully disagree, since there are superdelegates on either side and they are complex human beings.
posted by kyp at 3:37 PM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


This was from about a month ago — Sanders supporters' courtship of Clinton superdelegates may be backfiring:

Akilah Ensley, a North Carolina superdelegate, said she started hearing more often from Sanders supporters after her name appeared on a Wikipedia list noting her support for Clinton. "Some of them were nice, and some were rather abrasive," she said, adding "attacking my decisions is probably not the best way” to change her mind.

Luis Heredia, an Arizona superdelegate for Clinton, said he has received over 30 phone calls, emails and instant messages from Sanders supporters. “The majority of them are more angry, and the tone is more demanding,” Heredia said.

Lacy Johnson, an Indiana superdelegate backing Clinton, meanwhile, said he had received a mix of messages, including one that he said threatened: “we will make you pay.”


I want to point out that the article says none of the pressuring is officially done by or supported by the Sanders' campaign.
posted by FJT at 3:56 PM on March 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


yeah IMHO stuff like that isn't an open discussion with a complex human being, it's hassling
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:02 PM on March 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sanders bumped off D.C. ballot

Both the Sanders' campaign and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton's campaign paid the $2,500 fee to appear on the June 14 Democratic primary ballot on time but the district's Democratic Party failed to inform the Washington D.C. Board of Elections until March 17, one day after the deadline.

Nothing to see here, folks!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:14 PM on March 30, 2016


Your comment (with no evidence), and similar comments I've seen on people's feeds, that often go hand in hand with completely dismissing (with no evidence) the expertise and credibility of this female journalist is literally part of the phenomenon she is discussing.

What do you say, as an experiment, we both get on the phone and reach out to the campaign for a 3 minute chat with Hillary Clinton. For some reason I can't believe our experience would be the same as someone who "bundled" 50k for her.

Anyone who thinks an ex-board member of Walmart gives a shit about a living wage is fooling themselves.
posted by mikelieman at 4:15 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


You don't need a quid-pro-quo when you're buying ACCESS. Everything else is done with a wink and a nod. The guys who gave her 200k for an hour of her time just *mention* that they *think* 15 bucks an hour isn't acceptable, and it's off the table.
posted by mikelieman at 4:17 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Everyone agrees that the Board of Elections will probably waive the rule and put Bernie on the ballot, a lungful of dragons, and if not then the worst case scenario is that the D.C. Council will fix it with an emergency vote. I don't think anyone believes that Bernie Sanders is not going to appear on the ballot. People in DC would be livid if that happened.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:17 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I call shenanigans. Seriously. The deadline just slipped their minds?
posted by mikelieman at 4:20 PM on March 30, 2016


this is the last primary of the season, worth 19 delegates.

if you're gonna steal an election with your evil corruptness...this has got to be the lamest one you could go for.

no offense DC
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:23 PM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


The issue being fixed is less concerning, as it happening in the first place. It's a big enough transgression that people should perhaps be skeptical of anyone who calls it a mistake. Messing with ballots should carry some kind of criminal penalty.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:23 PM on March 30, 2016


Sanders name will be on the ballot. There is no harm here.
posted by Justinian at 4:25 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


the argument about the minimum wage seems to be entirely based on the difference between $12 and $15, right? i support $15 and i wish clinton did to, but she's been advocating and supporting raising the minimum wage, including trying to get congress pay raises linked to raising the minimum wage, for years now. to suggest that she's just eager to be a push over on this topic doesn't seem to be related to facts.
posted by nadawi at 4:25 PM on March 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Today’s decision, first of all, underscores the importance of the elections in November. There are many areas of the law where the difference between a swing vote on the supreme court appointed by Republican and Democratic president is huge. This case is a classic example. Virtually any justice nominated by a Democratic president would reject the argument that the first amendment forbids public sector agency shops, and almost any Republican-nominated judge would accept it. And it’s not just the presidential election that matters, either. If Democrats maintain control of the White House and recapture the Senate, President Clinton or Sanders will almost certainly be able to name Scalia’s replacement. If a Democratic president faces off with a Republican-controlled Senate, though, all bets are off.
Without Scalia, America's political landscape is being transformed
posted by y2karl at 4:25 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


So it makes no sense as a conspiracy but we should all assume it's a conspiracy because reasons? I'm going to go with "never attribute to malice etc. etc. etc."
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:26 PM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hillary Clinton: even her ratfucking is ineffectual.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:26 PM on March 30, 2016


nadawi, if these "facts" don't support the narrative that Clinton Is Just The Worst Ever, can we really be sure they're facts?
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:27 PM on March 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


But D.C. Democrats did not email the candidates' registration information to the D.C. Board of Elections until a day after the registration deadline of March 16, News4's Tom Sherwood was first to report on Twitter.

A Democratic voter in D.C. filed a challenge against the Sanders' campaign's registration. No complaint was filed against Clinton's registration.


While I wouldn't call it conspiracy, it bothers me that a challenge could be issued against only one candidate when the party apparently turned in the information late for both candidates.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 4:29 PM on March 30, 2016


What I'm trying to say is that the discrete action of the DC party turning in registration information late should have been challengeable, in my opinion, rather than the eligibility of a particular candidate who had presumably followed the party's rules.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 4:39 PM on March 30, 2016


Is no one watching this Kasich town hall though
posted by zutalors! at 4:42 PM on March 30, 2016


I'm not sure what you mean. They turned in both candidates info late.
posted by Justinian at 4:43 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is no one watching this Kasich town hall though

Yes. If he were the nominee I think he would become President. Which is scary because he's not moderate and reasonable. He is very good about coming across that way though.
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


He seems surprised that the crowd isn't rowdier. Like, have you seen you though, John Kasich?
posted by zutalors! at 4:46 PM on March 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yes, and the challenge should have been against the whole packet of info turned in late. What did you think I meant?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 4:46 PM on March 30, 2016


I wasn't sure. If someone wanted to challenge the whole packet they could have. Nobody decided to do that.
posted by Justinian at 4:51 PM on March 30, 2016


Ooh, Kasich used Obama's "folks wanna pop off" line.
posted by zutalors! at 4:51 PM on March 30, 2016


The "Trump Train" lady just made me grab my head. That's around the time I stopped watching.
posted by cashman at 4:54 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, and the challenge should have been against the whole packet of info turned in late.
My guess is that that's what the Board of Elections will say when they turn the challenge down. Anyone can challenge anything. This wasn't ever going to go anywhere.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:57 PM on March 30, 2016


Last week Marie LePen (racist politician from France) stopped by for a surprise visit on her way to Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. Which is a hell of a detour as the islands are almost stuck to Newfoundland. And she would have likely received more hospitality. Because if she came to drum up support (she got about 7 percent of the vote from people from France living in Quebec in their last election) she found even less from us. We have developed a fairly healthy culture of protest and it blossomed at her every stop. She called us a bunch of spoiled babies that need a nap and suggested that protests were the antithesis of democracy. All our politicians, all the way down to mayors, refused to meet with her. One politician (leader of one of the opposition parties) offered to meet because he wanted to tell her why her views are abhorrent to her face but she must have gotten a heads up and refused the offer.

Quebec has gone through a bit of a revolution (been bubbling up and down for 80 years or so). One of the larger themes was independence but that wasn't the real discussion. What was discussed was (given a blank slate) what type of society or world do you want to live in. Disagreement over the best path was normal but the goals (fairness and caring) were common ground. It was a discussion of ideas that threatened everything 'establishment' so it saw lots push back and while the larger question lost, many ideas were made concrete. Quebec also elected enough separatist federal MPs (members of parliament) to form the official opposition. Quebec was often equated to a complaining spoiled child. But this happens to every protest movement or strike. Part of the 'just roll over and quit making noise' tact.

One of the programs we got from raising a ruckus was a subsidized 5$ a day childcare program. Our provincial liberal party said we couldn't afford it, and when they came to power (changing parties is important because entrenched power gets more and more corrupt) we protested and it was maintained but the fee was raised to 7$ a day. They keep trying to fuck around with it and now want people making more to pay more so the program is no longer universal and can be further stripped. We have had the program for 20 years now and one interesting thing is that by sharing the burden of child rearing, it has freed women (predominately) to pursue better education and employment and they are responsible for raising the provincial GDP by more than the program has cost. And it has a slight side effect of closing the gender wage gap too for some reason.

We have suddenly begun seriously discussing a 15$ an hour minimum wage here and organizing to make it happen is underway ... American politics carry very real ripple effects ... proliferating a message about a living wage to the point we can just pick it up and only need to pound it into reality is a huge gift ... spring is unfolding so student strike weather will soon be here ... let the protests begin.
posted by phoque at 5:04 PM on March 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


Not sure about the law, but regarding the alleged nefariousness of publishing a Facebook conversation, folks publish similar private email threads all the time.

That's not even considering this is a public official in a conversation about official business.
posted by Lyme Drop at 5:13 PM on March 30, 2016


...and there's Trump saying he wouldn't take nuking Europe off the table.

Great work, Chris Matthews.
posted by zutalors! at 5:20 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]




Clinton interview on msnbc in a few minutes.
posted by futz at 6:03 PM on March 30, 2016


Clinton interview on msnbc in a few minutes.

which everyone would KNOW if they'd been watching MSNBC for the last two hours SMH
posted by zutalors! at 6:05 PM on March 30, 2016


Barney Frank doesn't mince words in this interview:
I am disappointed by the voters who say, “OK I’m just going to show you how angry I am!” And I’m particularly unimpressed with people who sat out the Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014 and then are angry at Democrats because we haven’t been able to produce public policies they like. They contributed to the public policy problems and now they are blaming other people for their own failure to vote, and then it’s like, “Oh look at this terrible system,” but it was their voting behavior that brought it about.
posted by peacheater at 6:05 PM on March 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


which everyone would KNOW if they'd been watching MSNBC for the last two hours SMH
posted by zutalors!


What do you mean by that? I haven't been watching tv tonight. Has this interview been mentioned in this thread and I missed it? If so I apologize.
posted by futz at 6:12 PM on March 30, 2016


I was just joking. I'm home sick and am jealous that people have a life and aren't sitting in front of MSNBC with a box of tissues.
posted by zutalors! at 6:21 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


They contributed to the public policy problems and now they are blaming other people for their own failure to vote, and then it’s like, “Oh look at this terrible system,” but it was their voting behavior that brought it about.

Does anyone have any reliable info on what factors are responsible for low voter turnout? I.e., do voters bear the brunt of the responsibility?
posted by kyp at 6:29 PM on March 30, 2016


I was just joking.

Ok.

If I turn on msnbc to watch this interview I'll be reaching for the tissues too.
Looks like I missed a bunch of it because my pup got loose.
posted by futz at 6:36 PM on March 30, 2016


I guess that, as much as I get incredibly frustrated with people who don't vote in midterms, I don't think that's a very useful or motivating way to talk about it. We need to convince people to start voting in non-presidential elections, and telling them that we think they're shitty people with invalid opinions is really not going to accomplish that.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:44 PM on March 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wait until they find out he doesn't grow his own food.
posted by kyp at 7:05 PM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


msalt, a Bernie-supporting friend of mind posted that exchange along with the declaration that neither party represents him anymore, and he is so disappointed with politics. I read it and at first I thought he was upset because of how obnoxious and rude that guy was being, and then I realized it was because this very polite, firm woman was not changing her mind in the face of his aggressiveness.

It's really disheartening, because it represents how far this election has divided the two of us--that I see a guy who isn't even trying to act in good faith, who is just harassing this lady, and he sees a freedom fighter rebuked by the Corrupt Establishment (in the form of a little old lady from Alaska). To me, it's so obvious that irrespective of the issue of superdelegates this guy is a jerk. And to my friend, his delivery and words are totally justified and this woman is a terrible bitch. I never thought we would think so differently about the fundamental issue of how one treats other humans.
posted by Anonymous at 7:07 PM on March 30, 2016


I feel sorry for all the office grunts involved in the DC ballot snafu. For situations like this, CYA was invented- I do not want to be the guy who said, eh, let's just wait until tomorrow to send the email, what could possibly go wrong?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:08 PM on March 30, 2016


Bernie's lit on Rachel Maddow y'all.
posted by zutalors! at 7:21 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maddow is breathlessly including herself in the story which I find off-putting. You very rarely hear other reporters reporting on the act of reporting.

Lets say that I microwaved some mac n cheese. End of story right? Not with Maddow. She always has to tell you how she opened the box, ran to the microwave, spent time waiting on the cooking process and how she is oh so clever for figuring out how to not burn her tongue while eating it.

There would be a whole lot more airtime for actual news if she spent less time congratulating herself on how clever she is. I used to love her and I think she's smart as hell but I am sick of her schtick. And yes, I am aware that all news personalities have a schtick, but she often inserts herself into the story when it isn't relavent at all.
posted by futz at 7:30 PM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


zutalors!, I appreciate your bravery in plumbing the depths of basic cable.

Go on with your bad sick self! Your sacrifice will not be forgotten.
posted by Salieri at 7:32 PM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am going to say one more thing on this, and then I'm done:

You did not, and he did not, as detailed in the discussion just above.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there was only one person in that "discussion" who thought Bernie was not saying he wanted superdelegates in Clinton states to vote for him.

As for the "white states" thing, you linked to an article where people not connected to the Sanders campaign said the things you ascribed to the campaign. Your claim was that his campaign said those things.

You're right, I was thinking of this article (which also includes tidbits about using superdelegates):
Aides have long said they wanted to survive to this point as a viable candidacy, before heading into a stretch marked by caucuses in largely white states that would enable them to build back momentum against Hillary Clinton. After that, they’re hoping they can persuade the Democratic superdelegates to put them over the top if they’re close enough to Clinton in pledged delegates.
[. . .]
Relying on superdelegates to deliver a win when Clinton already has support from the bulk of them is a long-shot strategy. It could also put him at odds with important elements of his grass-roots base, forcing Sanders to explain to skeptical Clinton supporters and other Democrats why he’s keeping her from pivoting fully to Donald Trump, and to some of his own backers why he’s willing to potentially use technicalities to grab the nomination from Clinton in what would be a superdelegate coup at the Democratic convention in July.
posted by Anonymous at 7:37 PM on March 30, 2016


Can't say I'm thrilled with the framing,

Yeah, no shit. wow.

The explanation is good if you can get through the blatant bias.
posted by futz at 7:43 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


WaPo still has a problem disclosing its owner, Jeff Bezos, owns $1B+ in Uber stock. https://t.co/CuPNxjFehV pic.twitter.com/jncJeDuR9o— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) March 30, 2016

posted by kyp at 7:50 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Article entitled "No, Bernie Sanders was not kicked off the D.C. ballot" = blatant bias.

Article entitled "Sanders bumped off D.C. ballot" = (crickets chirping).
posted by Justinian at 7:55 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I agree cjelli. No worries. There is bias in every article.
posted by futz at 7:57 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Typical Barney Frank in interview previously cited. The notion that (non)voters are partly to blame for the policy messes we endure is a nice deflection from the fact that he and many other lawmakers write laws in complex ways. One example, compare the Volcker Rule to calls for an updated Glass-Steagall. Also note that there are some differences on the campaign trail regarding G-S. Should voters be expected to know all the ins and outs of this kind of debate? It would be nice if they did, but in our representative democracy we have to rely upon people who spend lots of time in specific industries and trust they'll do the right thing.

Bottom line, while Frank was a good public servant in many respects, he did (and apparently still does) have a variant of that inside-the-Beltway attitude which in some respects leaves him at a remove from ordinary citizens. (A similar kind of critique can be made of the Eisman article Frank lauds in the interview. Only in Eisman's case, it isn't and inside-the-Beltway attitude, it's as an insider of the FIRE sector.)
posted by CincyBlues at 7:57 PM on March 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


The title is fine. The commentary in it is pretty blatantly biased, however, and I say this as a die-hard Clinton supporter.

Sanders chose to use a tiny fraction of his haul to skip the hassle of collecting 1,000 signatures to get on the D.C. ballot.

The self-described Democratic socialist instead went the capitalist route.


Implying he is lazy and somehow going against his principles because he used a totally reasonable method to get on the ballot? Come on.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:58 PM on March 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't know, I think Barney Frank is right. Voter suppression and tediously complex bills are a thing, but so is Democrats staying home and not really caring in midterm elections, especially when we've got a pleasing figurehead in the Executive office.

If we could like, Occupy Midterms 2018, I'm there.
posted by zutalors! at 8:08 PM on March 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Agreed thefoxgood. On preview, you are a fox god and I have been misreading your username!

The bias in the article is hilariously obvious. Like Vegas blinking neon lights obvious. It happens on both sides but this should be on the Opinion Page. I am too lazy to follow the journalist and this story but it would be interesting to see if there are any retractions. Probably not. whatevs.
posted by futz at 8:12 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


but so is Democrats staying home and not really caring in midterm elections, especially when we've got a pleasing figurehead in the Executive office.

The problem is (no snark intended) a lot of progressives aren't Democrats anymore, and not all of them are pleased with the figurehead.
posted by kyp at 8:28 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't know. I talked to *a lot* of reluctant voters in 2014, and I would say that very few of them would describe themselves as progressives. I don't think that self-identified progressives are really the Democrats' mid-term problem.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:32 PM on March 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


no snark, I don't think that's the problem. Obama has a very high approval rating. Democrats staying home in midterms has been happening as long as I've been able to vote, basically the whole millennium so far.

The Sanders revolution stuff is pretty new. I don't think people stayed home in 2014 because they were progressives mad at Obama.
posted by zutalors! at 8:32 PM on March 30, 2016


I mean, why are we making a case for people to stay home during midterm elections? Where is the progressive revolution supposed to happen then?
posted by zutalors! at 8:34 PM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm not making the case for people to stay home, and I hope it's not taken that way. I think it's healthy to identify the potential problems so we can talk about how to fix it.

I think it's telling that Sanders has not only the support, but the record-breaking crowdfunding that he is receiving. He is revealing to a new generation of voters that not only can they vote, but they can actually use their dollars to fight back.

Even if he doesn't win the nomination, he is sending a message that +40% of Democrats believe his platform is realistic.
posted by kyp at 8:42 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obama has an 86% approval rating among Democrats, and it's historically been high. I really don't think people stayed home in 2014 as a protest, I think they did so because midterms aren't sexy enough.

he is sending a message that +40% of Democrats believe his platform is realistic

that's a good thing, but even some of Obama's proposals would be more realistic if we had more Congress seats.
posted by zutalors! at 8:47 PM on March 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm with you on voter turnout, zutalors!. And if Frank stopped there I'd have no quibbles. My mother, for years, worked elections as the person who kept the book where you would sign in. I would always ask here about the turnout in her precinct and the numbers (for both Dems and Repubs) were appallingly low in mid terms. Sometimes as low as 10%! And suppression was not a reason; it was simple apathy.

I suppose Frank's argument would be: "Elect more Democrats and then policy would be better." Well, yes...and no. One example. The manner in which the Obama admin addressed the financial crisis was contentious within the admin itself. Lots of items that one might consider to be "good, ordinary Democratic voter" no-brainers were fought over, and many were taken off the table, by insider Democrats. I've read a number of books about the crisis and while it isn't always pleasant to observe the sausage-making, it can be illuminating. And that's my quibble. There are plenty of Democrats who bear some responsibility for the mess we're in (on both economic and foreign policy fronts) and for Frank to suggest that that is the fault of ordinary (non)voters is mistaken, imo.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:49 PM on March 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yea I agree with you in part CincyBlues.
posted by zutalors! at 8:51 PM on March 30, 2016


Obama has an 86% approval rating among Democrats, and it's historically been high. I really don't think people stayed home in 2014 as a protest, I think they did so because midterms aren't sexy enough.

I'm not saying they stayed home as protest. I'm saying they stayed home out of apathy or disillusionment (perhaps with how the Wall St crisis was handled).

that's a good thing, but even some of Obama's proposals would be more realistic if we had more Congress seats.

You have to address the root cause. Consistent high voter turnout is the long-term solution, and I think Sanders, because of his funding model and support, can produce that. I mean, imagine if even Clinton's supporters gave him money!
posted by kyp at 8:54 PM on March 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't know, I'm a Clinton supporter and I gave him money. I like him and think he's good for the party, I just don't see him as this great breath of fresh air after 8 years of Obama horribleness, as I guess good progressives should. I don't think I'm alone in that at all. Also voter apathy in midterms has been going on long before Obama. I'm all for looking for root causes but I don't think it's that.

I mean, some people don't even know we have midterm elections.
posted by zutalors! at 9:02 PM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


A lot of people don't know who their representative in Congress is. A lot of people can't tell you who their Senators are. A lot of people don't engage in politics at all. Some of them are disillusioned. Others lack the understanding that they can exercise some power over the course of policy if they get/ remain involved. And then there are three people who do vote, but it makes no difference, because of gerrymandering and the like. Representative democracy needs to be seen as less of an oxymoron for voter turnout to go up.
posted by bardophile at 11:17 PM on March 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Low turnout has been an ongoing issue for decades. Pretty consistently a little over 50% during presidential elections, ~37% during midterms.

Representative democracy needs to be seen as less of an oxymoron for voter turnout to go up.

Well, I think part of the issue there is that some of those egregious abuses, like gerrymandering, are enabled by a public that elects those lawmakers to office who do the gerrymandering.

Money and special interests have far too much influence on our government--but they're enabled by a population that just doesn't engage with the system.

---

Somewhat related--does anyone have any insight on what precipitated the drop in turnout that started in the early 1970s? It seems like from 1960 until then turnout was 60%/47% for presidential/midterm years, and then turnout drops about 10% for each of those numbers and never recovers.
posted by Anonymous at 11:24 PM on March 30, 2016


Lots of items that one might consider to be "good, ordinary Democratic voter" no-brainers were fought over, and many were taken off the table, by insider Democrats.

Chicken - egg. They took them off the table because they knew how to count and they knew there weren't enough votes to get them passed.

That's what younger Sanders supporters might not be getting about some of Bernie's proposals. Campaign reform? Single payer? I hate to be sarcastic, but for someone who's been through a lot of these battles, it's tempting to go
"OH MY GOD! Why didn't we think of that? If only we'd asked for a much more radical reform, Republicans would have not even tried to fight us!!!!!"
posted by msalt at 11:32 PM on March 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


does anyone have any insight on what precipitated the drop in turnout that started in the early 1970s? It seems like from 1960 until then turnout was 60%/47% for presidential/midterm years, and then turnout drops about 10% for each of those numbers and never recovers.

I sense that it's related to the general decline in associations and group identity in US culture, part of suburbanization and white flight and the decline of Elks Lodges and the Sons of Hibernia and mainline churches and (of course) unions. The political parties were among those affiliative lifelong groups.

These more stable associations were replaced by loose groups that had no membership rolls, talk radio, non-denomination megachurches, TV campaign ads, and -- stay with me -- the disintegrating effects of cable television. I distinctily remember when we got cable TV in 1977, it was earth shattering. 3 highly conformist networks turned into CNN and CSPAN and Night Flight and MTV with actual art music videos. Later Fox News came along and it all went to shit.
posted by msalt at 11:38 PM on March 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Well, I'm hopeful that he is the candidate who will provide both the chicken and the egg. That is, the high-minded policies and the voter turnout.
posted by kyp at 12:17 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's what younger Sanders supporters might not be getting about some of Bernie's proposals. Campaign reform? Single payer? I hate to be sarcastic, but for someone who's been through a lot of these battles, it's tempting to go
"OH MY GOD! Why didn't we think of that? If only we'd asked for a much more radical reform, Republicans would have not even tried to fight us!!!!!"


Of the portion of Hillary's agenda that requires congress to pass, what bills will she pass in her first two years? Why will the tea party agree to pass them?
posted by Drinky Die at 3:30 AM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


Don't dodge this. Explain to me how a person who lists Republicans as the people she is most proud of making an enemy of is going to persuade the tea party, who loathes her with all their being, to grant her a successful Presidency. Obama tried that. Why try it again with someone they hate even more?

There is not a single thing she will do they will not oppose the same as they oppose single payer and campaign reform. Refusing to support those policies out of fear of Republicans is not pragmatism, it's pointless cowardice. Better to make the argument they are bad policy.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:41 AM on March 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think it's unlikely that any Democrat will be able to achieve anything sweeping in the next term. The difference between Hillary and Bernie is that she admits that political reality, while he sells a fantasy. When he's asked how he is going to get free college and single-payer healthcare, he says that he will get a Democratic Congress in 2016. He could say "look, those are long-term goals, and we probably won't get them right away, but electing me is a good first step, and then we will do this thing to sustain momentum while we work on winning back the House and converting more-conservative Democrats to my goals." I guess that I just trust a politician who admits hard truths more than one who lies and promises me things that he knows (or should know) aren't going to happen right away. It speaks to character.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:55 AM on March 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


Hillary says she is going to pass incremental improvements to Obamacare. Explain to me why Paul Ryan is giving this to her. You can't. It's as much a 100% fantasy as anything Sanders suggests. I mean, you have it all totally backwards. The lie is that you can do anything without winning congress back.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:00 AM on March 31, 2016 [13 favorites]


does anyone have any insight on what precipitated the drop in turnout that started in the early 1970s? It seems like from 1960 until then turnout was 60%/47% for presidential/midterm years, and then turnout drops about 10% for each of those numbers and never recovers.

Purely speculative on my part but here is what I think given that I lived through the period.

The 60s were highly politicized: the Civil Rights Movement (including reactionary George Wallace response); Vietnam; Great Society debates; lots of student radicalism. Folks had reasons to vote. Then, Nixon's lies about Vietnam, Tet 68 and arguments about whether we were winning or losing the Vietnam war; Watergate and impeachment; the 1971-75 fallout of the economy (including the oil crisis in 73). Ford's pardon of Nixon; a very bland and sometimes amateurish Carter admin; Increasing propaganda suggesting that government itself was ineffective and bad (which eventually brought us Reagan.)

Lots of folks just stopped caring.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:02 AM on March 31, 2016


Hillary has said that she thinks that passing incremental improvements to Obamacare is the right way to fix it. She hasn't said that she will do it immediately. There are also ways to extend Obamacare at the state level, which would bypass Congress. Bernie, on the other hand, when asked about how he would implement his proposals, predicted that he would get majorities in both houses of Congress.

You sound kind of hostile. Is that the tone you're going for?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:06 AM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


The political reality is that nothing a Democrat proposes that needs to pass congress is going to pass. Even essential matters like funding the government will be fought to the death. Neither candidate publicly acknowledges that reality. Both know it. But you can't run a campaign on, "I won't be able to pass anything."

It's naked partisanship to attack Bernie for that and do a kabuki around the fact that Hillary does the same exact thing. If anything, her implication that her pragmatic policies will get deals done with Republicans is the far greater dishonesty. That is never happening. Winning congress might happen.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:14 AM on March 31, 2016 [16 favorites]


Hillary promises little, and won't be able to attain that without a Democratic senate.
Bernie promises much, and won't be able to attain that without a Democratic senate.

I'm not sure how unreasonable it is to vote for Bernie. At very least, it pushes the conversation forward, makes a stand for true progressivism, and leaves the executive branch (and with it Justice and Treasury) in the hands of someone who is willing to target bad actors.

I'm not voting for Sanders because Clinton is somehow terrible. I'm voting for Sanders because I want him to win, and at very least enter that convention with 45% of the Democratic votes, so that he is in a position to negotiate a positive change in the Democratic Party. Presidential elections may be winner-take-all, but nominating conventions need not be. So, with no rancor or malice or condescension, I'm a Bernie supporter.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:20 AM on March 31, 2016 [19 favorites]


Chicken - egg. They took them off the table because they knew how to count and they knew there weren't enough votes to get them passed.

This is so grossly oversimplified that I can only conclude that you really don't have a clue about the nature of the debates that took place over some of the important choices that were floated at that time. And perhaps indicative of something I suggested previously: the complexity associated with the 2007-8 crash and financial rescue requires some genuine work to get a full understanding of what happened, who the players were, and what the policy options were and how they were hashed out.

It behooves us to stop making excuses for the behavior of our political class based simply upon our partisan preferences. It creates a lot of chaff which makes it harder to find the wheat. That the Treasury department and the Fed behaved the way it did in response to folks like Sheila Bair at FDIC or Neil Barofsky at SIGTARP had nothing to do with votes and Congress. That certain members of Obama's economics crew were squeezed out (e.g. Goolsby) while others took over the process (e.g. Summers and Geithner) also had little to do with votes and Congress.

Look, I get it. Political economy is kind of dreary for many folks. It makes eyes glaze over and causes daydreams akin to those many of us had in high school: "Gosh, it's spring, it's nice outside, and here I am stuck in Social Studies class."

Fact: The Democratic party has since 1972, but especially with the DLC and Bill Clinton in the 90s, abandoned a large segment of its working class base.

Fact: The Democratic party is a lot cozier with Wall Street than it's pre-1972 incarnation.

Debate: Is this a good thing or not? This stuff is too important. One has to know when a band-aid is being improperly used when the situation calls for a tourniquet.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:41 AM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


Slight correction to earlier post. Meant to say Johnson's lies about Vietnam. Nixon's lies came a little later.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:51 AM on March 31, 2016


Hillary promises little, and won't be able to attain that without a Democratic senate.
Bernie promises much, and won't be able to attain that without a Democratic senate.


Does Sanders have any plans to help this happen? I know Clinton has been giving money to down-ballot races across the country, while Sanders, when asked about doing the same, has said, "We'll see." And I know people have said he doesn't owe the Democratic "establishment" anything, but he does need the party's votes. Honest question. I'm not being snarky. I don't know how involved he is in helping to make a majority happen.
posted by zerbinetta at 6:10 AM on March 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


I'm sure he would like to be doing more, but he doesn't have the resources. It's easier to do that kind of fundraising with the party machine and he doesn't have the machine in his corner, besides that he is losing the election so he doesn't really have the resources to spare.

If you want to vote based on who is more likely to help get the Democrats back in control of Congress, I think it's undeniable there is a strong case for Hillary. I personally disagree, but the case is strong.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:17 AM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


If you want to vote based on who is more likely to help get the Democrats back in control of Congress, I think it's undeniable there is a strong case for Hillary. I personally disagree, but the case is strong.

Eh...I'd say the GOP candidate will be a much stronger influence on whether the Democrats retake Congress or not.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:27 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, of course Hillary has resources to spare to help down-ballot races and Bernie does not, but why would you funnel your money through her when you can give directly to candidates? It's bad enough that our electoral system requires money to function, and that we don't have a system in place to take that money out of public funds, but connecting support for a specific Presidential candidate with the fact that she might throw a few bones to down-ballot Democrats they like, and then using that to question whether Democrat-by-convenience Bernie Sanders is doing enough to support party Democrats who largely aren't supporting him... Yeah, I think we may have lost the thread on this one.

There are a lot of valid reasons one might prefer Hillary over Bernie in the primary, but the fact that she gives money and appears at rallies for members of her party and Bernie is focused more on getting himself elected is a very flawed justification.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:37 AM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


>I know Clinton has been giving money to down-ballot races across the country

>It's easier to do that kind of fundraising with the party machine

I've been wanting to ask about this. When we talk about giving money to "down-ballot races," I don't know what we mean. Are we sure we're not talking about giving money to the DNC?

Because, from what I've been seeing, it looks like the DNC does a lot to support incumbents against challengers from within the party.
posted by Trochanter at 6:40 AM on March 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


YG f. Nipsey Hu$$le - 'Fuck Donald Trump'

Sounds like a little something to ride to on a fonky expedition. And that's the weirdest way I might have imagined I would have learned of the death of one of the Conscious Daughters years ago.
posted by cashman at 6:48 AM on March 31, 2016


There are a lot of valid reasons one might prefer Hillary over Bernie in the primary, but the fact that she gives money and appears at rallies for members of her party and Bernie is focused more on getting himself elected is a very flawed justification.

I don't know if you're talking general "you" or me in particular. I don't use that as a reason to vote/not vote for someone. But I asked my question because I do want to know what Sanders' plan is for getting a majority to support his agenda. If it has nothing to do with fundraising, then it'd be reassuring to know what the plan is exactly.
posted by zerbinetta at 6:49 AM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


Bernie Sanders reportedly left off D.C. primary ballot (vague article)
posted by jeffburdges at 6:53 AM on March 31, 2016


Because, from what I've been seeing, it looks like the DNC does a lot to support incumbents against challengers from within the party.

I think that's a rational thing for a political party to do. The primary goal is to win elections for as many party members as possible, winning is easier with incumbents and incumbents have generally done the sort of work Hillary has done in the past to benefit the party organization.

Eh...I'd say the GOP candidate will be a much stronger influence on whether the Democrats retake Congress or not.

For 2016 there is going to be a lot of anti-Trump turnout, yeah, I was thinking more in 2018 terms.

But I asked my question because I do want to know what Sanders' plan is for getting a majority to support his agenda. If it has nothing to do with fundraising, then it'd be reassuring to know what the plan is exactly.

The Sanders plan is grassroots organization, continuing on what he has built during the campaign. It's really more of a DIY plan, his case is that he is a very good figurehead for such a plan because he excites new voters and can bring in independents. It's obviously far from as concrete in the details as Hillary's proven ongoing contributions have been, but I do think he is right in his approach. If he is elected he will have the party support and organization and fundraising anyway, it doesn't go away if we don't nominate Hillary. He can combine his strengths with the sort of strengths Hillary proposes, but she will have a rougher time trying to leverage the sort of advantages he has.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:05 AM on March 31, 2016 [6 favorites]




If Obama, the President elected to make Supreme Court appointments, CANNOT DO THAT, what does it say about the We Need X because of USSC appointments argument? Why should we expect the Senate to provide any more advice and consent than right the fuck now?
posted by mikelieman at 7:08 AM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


New York is a 12 point difference, with Clinton leading, three weeks before the primary.

So Sanders will only win by 20 points.
posted by mikelieman at 7:09 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't know if you're talking general "you" or me in particular.

The former, but I acknowledge that's unclear because I switched between "but why would you funnel your money" and "one might prefer."

then it'd be reassuring to know what the plan is exactly.

As others have said, there's very little that can be done about GOP intransigence no matter who the nominee is, so I think Bernie's plan is to focus on the things that are within his control.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:11 AM on March 31, 2016


So Sanders will only win by 20 points.

Perhaps. I live in New York, and the Sanders campaign is working very hard, including a big rally in the South Bronx today, to win the state.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:11 AM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Are we sure we're not talking about giving money to the DNC?

Yes, you're right. It's the DNC. But her Hillary Victory Fund also includes state party committees. Open Secrets has a breakdown.

Also, to tonycpsu's point about giving directly to candidates, there are also options like giving to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
posted by zerbinetta at 7:11 AM on March 31, 2016


work Hillary has done in the past to benefit the party organization.

Yeah, but then you get stuff like this:

Amanda Marcotte@AmandaMarcotte
Imagine if Sanders fundraised for candidates to help move the party left! But he won’t. Clinton does, tho.

Which is a general subtext for the fundraising thing, and which does not follow.
posted by Trochanter at 7:12 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeesh, that's some ridiculous reasoning on Marcotte's part.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:20 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, of course Hillary has resources to spare to help down-ballot races and Bernie does not, but why would you funnel your money through her when you can give directly to candidates?
I think because it takes a huge amount of work to figure out which candidates to give money to. An awful lot of Bernie's money seems to be coming from places like the Bay Area, and I don't think people there are really tuned in to the race in Iowa's first congressional district, which is currently held by a Republican but is a possible pick-up for the Democrats. If you want to win back Congress, you have to be strategic about targeting resources, not just look at the stuff that's local to donors or the candidates whom donors find most compelling. And that's not easy for individual donors to do.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:24 AM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


not just look at the stuff that's local to donors or the candidates whom donors find most compelling

That's up to the DNC to decide on behalf of donors.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:32 AM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


I mean, you certainly could funnel your donations through a PAC or something that was more in line with your beliefs. But just donating to individual candidates is, I think, going to take a degree of research that isn't reasonable to expect from individual donors. That is, if your goal is actually to win back Congress, which Bernie says it is.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:39 AM on March 31, 2016


And that's not easy for individual donors to do.

Plenty of other groups exist to take peoples' money and apply it strategically to advance a progressive agenda. Giving it to a particular candidate in the hopes that a fraction of it will be applied wisely to down-ballot races seems naive.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:40 AM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


This seems like a good way to find out about downticket Sanders Democrats.
posted by zutalors! at 7:45 AM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


but yeah if you want Democrats to win donate to the DCCC or the DSCC. If you don't trust the Democratic Party with your money at all, I don't know what to tell you.
posted by zutalors! at 7:47 AM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


I feel like the funding downstream races thing is a bit of a red herring where supporting a primary contender is concerned. Clinton has been pretty clear that she's going to be working for the Democratic ticket whether or not she wins the primary, and presumably so will Bill and Obama. Likewise, if Sanders loses, I expect he'll probably put some time and effort into Dem candidates as well - he's been hitting the "we need more Democratic congresscritters" beat pretty hard, and encourage his followers to donate as well.

Seriously, there seems to be a lot of projection of the relative mutual hostility of Sanders and Clinton supporters upwards onto the candidates themselves. They've been spending relatively little time spitting fire at each other and both have been pretty clear that they see the wider picture. Does anyone really believe that either of them is going to "take the ball and go home" after spending eight months repeatedly stating that all things considered, their primary opponent is miles better than the flaming Wicker Man full of innocents the other party seems destined to nominate?
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:53 AM on March 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


but yeah if you want Democrats to win donate to the DCCC or the DSCC. If you don't trust the Democratic Party with your money at all, I don't know what to tell you.

Why would they need my hard-earned money when they have gobs of Wall Street's filthy lucre?
posted by entropicamericana at 7:54 AM on March 31, 2016


Clinton's first campaign ad aimed at New Yorkers.

She met with Rep. Charles Rangel at Make My Cake prior to her speech at the Apollo Theater.

The Apollo was an interesting choice for a speech. It's a very intimate theater which seats just over 1500. So even though it was SRO, that's not saying much: she wasn't speaking to a huge crowd. But it's the symbolic heart of Harlem.

Expect a much larger crowd for Sanders' rally today, since it's being held outdoors in good weather and attendees won't be limited by available space/seats.
posted by zarq at 7:54 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]




Why would they need my hard-earned money when they have gobs of Wall Street's filthy lucre?

Fundraising isn't just about your money--they're going to say 'we've received x individual donations from y million people across America,' and they want those values to be as large as possible.
posted by box at 8:25 AM on March 31, 2016


But why should I give them my money when they don't represent me? And how can you pretend my money would give them any incentive to represent me when it would pale compared to the money that Wall Street is firehosing at them?
posted by entropicamericana at 8:36 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's your call. Opting out of a corrupt system instead of taking tangible albeit small steps toward nudging that system away from corruptness is a defensible action, but so is trying to participate in the reform of that system in various ways, including but not limited to small donations to some candidates who may also accept larger donations.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:52 AM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


This is a separate point, but I think it's important to note that the idea that an elected official "doesn't represent you" isn't the same thing as "doesn't always act in accordance with my personal ideology." Your representatives unequivocally represent you in hundreds of ways most of us never think of. They will still be your rep. Whose office do you want to call when you have a problem? Want to advocate for a policy? Want to nominate someone for an award or a military academy? I just called my state senator with a dumb issue about a state agency I had some trouble with. Her public affairs aide was on it the same day, and the problem was resolved in the same week. When you go to DC, your reps' offices will offer you a free, friendly Capitol tour - your tax dollars at work. The lights are on and someone is there.

I'm not saying you should donate to people you don't support. But I am saying that, in the end, someone is literally going to represent you - and that can be with your participation, or without it. The channels are open to all of us.
posted by Miko at 8:55 AM on March 31, 2016 [13 favorites]


tangible albeit small steps toward nudging that system away from corruptness

Hillary Clinton is going to change the status quo of speaking-fees/bundled donations for access exactly HOW?
posted by mikelieman at 8:56 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hillary Clinton is going to change the status quo of speaking-fees/bundled donations for access exactly HOW?

I didn't say she would. Look elsewhere for the fight about Hillary you seem to want to have.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:57 AM on March 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


but yeah if you want Democrats to win donate to the DCCC or the DSCC. If you don't trust the Democratic Party with your money at all, I don't know what to tell you.

Is that a "I don't know what to tell you" meant to communicate a sense of frustration or unreasonableness? Because personally I'll never again give straight to the party after the number of progressives they have left twisting in the wind when they had the money to give.

I was happy to give when Dean was working a plan that meant every state had a chance to get candidates out there spreading a more progressive message. In subsequent years, when stories would break revealing that the party was dropping big spending on dem-favored races while freezing out other progressive folks? Not so much.

So I guess if you have money burning a hole in your pocket but no interest in finding some candidates who actually interest you with their policies or running in an area you care about, okay, giving to the machinery is better than setting the cash on fire. But I personally don't just want anyone with a D by their name to win, I want certain kinds of Ds to win. What I do in the polling booth is about the concrete better choice option. Handing over money can be more subtle, and I don't trust the DCCC to chart a course I'll approve of without more subtle influence.
posted by phearlez at 8:57 AM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


So frustrated with this sentiment that it's corruption/Wall Street which is responsible for the fact that progressives don't get their way on everything, rather than the fact that half the country is conservative. It's not Hillary Clinton's speaking fees standing in the way of universal health care. It's really not. It's Republicans. And I don't mean "corrupt Republican politicians in the pockets of Big Insurance." I mean regular people who vote Republican because they like capitalism.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:59 AM on March 31, 2016 [14 favorites]


As of this morning, Sanders has raised over $40 million in March with an average donation of $25.60. (per email that just went out)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:00 AM on March 31, 2016


so just what is wall street buying with that money?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:01 AM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


The opportunity to meet famous people who will be in history books someday? To feel important because they rub elbows with celebrities? I mean, they're human, and they've got the money to spare, so why not?
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:05 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


So frustrated with this sentiment that it's corruption/Wall Street which is responsible for the fact that progressives don't get their way on everything, rather than the fact that half the country is conservative.

Nope. What's more, when polled about specific policies, people are actually less conservative than they think.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:05 AM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't think either of those links actually refutes the argument. Maybe elected Republicans are more conservative than the average Republican voter, but that reflects the fact that its the super-conservative Republican voters who put in the effort to get them elected.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:09 AM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's a little more complicated than that. It's as much "conservative" as identity then conservative as a coherent ideology. Also, a lot of Americans don't like minorities, don't like women, don't like LGBT folks, and some just plain don't like Democrats or any policy supported by the Democrats.
posted by FJT at 9:09 AM on March 31, 2016 [7 favorites]



but yeah if you want Democrats to win donate to the DCCC or the DSCC. If you don't trust the Democratic Party with your money at all, I don't know what to tell you.



Is that a "I don't know what to tell you" meant to communicate a sense of frustration or unreasonableness?


I don't really know what that question means, but it's basically in the context of people who want Bernie Sanders to win as a Democrat, and think that he is going to get his Democratic supermajority but don't want to donate to the Democratic Party.

I mean, it's a circular conversation at this point. "I want Bernie Sanders to win!" "Ok, great, but also donate to downticket races so Dems can get things done!" also, "Contributing to a Presidential Campaign and hoping the candidate will help downticket races is dumb!" but then "No, I don't trust the Democratic Party with my money! Only Bernie Sanders!"

Ok. I mean what?

If you want to donate to particular D's, I posted a link of Democrats who are supporting Sanders.
posted by zutalors! at 9:10 AM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


The opportunity to meet famous people who will be in history books someday? To feel important because they rub elbows with celebrities? I mean, they're human, and they've got the money to spare, so why not?

I agree with this. And as someone who like both Sanders and Clinton, I think beating on the "speaking fees" drum is a distraction. Companies pay for the prestige of having big names speak to them, the same way stupid rich people pay celebrities to go to their parties. I think it's more on point to question campaign donations from those companies than speaking fees.
posted by zerbinetta at 9:14 AM on March 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yeah, I think we need campaign finance reform, and big campaign donations probably do buy some unfair access. But even if they didn't, my Republican relatives would still be electing Congresspeople to represent them who would be trying to repeal Obamacare every damn month, and railing against "Socialized medicine."
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:19 AM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Disagree. The speaking fees thing is part and parcel of Sanders' overall message about the capture of government by big money and a legitimate distinction he's drawing between himself and Clinton.
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:20 AM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


But I personally don't just want anyone with a D by their name to win, I want certain kinds of Ds to win.

So it's worth being aware (as you seem to be) that this is emphatically not the purpose of the D-triple C.

The DCCC only wants to win seats and offices by the widest possible margins, period. If they think that a Progressive is most likely to win a seat (and hold on to it for more than one election cycle,) then they will back them. But often, the D's who follow a moderate path win elections by appealing to the largest number of voters. In some states, the differences between Democratic and Republican candidates is exceedingly slim.

--

The Progressive Action PAC usually endorses a few candidates each election cycle. They're the Action arm of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which was co-founded by Senator Sanders. Many of its current members and candidates are also good candidates for donations or volunteer efforts. Also see the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) who endorse candidates each cycle.

--

Regarding the CPC, as of February, 39 of CPC Representatives had endorsed Clinton. Just two had endorsed Sanders. A current list of overall Congressional endorsements for each candidate is here, but is not broken down by caucus.
posted by zarq at 9:26 AM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


What bothers me about the speeches issue is that celebrities/politicians/whatever giving speeches for stupid large amounts of money has been a thing for a very long time, and the only way the issue has any teeth at all is if it carries the insinuation that the paid speeches were part of some unethical quid pro quo, and if she has nothing to hide she should just give her opposition everything they're asking for, right?
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:29 AM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


so just what is wall street buying with that money?

EVILCORP pays FamousPerson to speak.
EVILCORP gives tickets to potential clients or customers.
Potential clients and customers show up because they want to see FamousPerson.
Before and/or after FamousPerson talks someone from EVILCORP blethers about how awesome EVILCORP is.
Before, during, and after FamousPerson speaks, EVILCORP salesdrones schmooze potential clients.
FamousPerson costs $X; EVILCORP gets new business worth $Y. With a little luck, $Y is more than $X.

tl;dr FamousPerson is the free vacation getaway getting people to come in and hear the time-share presentation that everyone knows will suck
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:32 AM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


How can you pretend my money would give them any incentive to represent me when it would pale compared to the money that Wall Street is firehosing at them?

Tell that to Bernie, small money has allowed him to compete against the firehose.

You say you want a revolution? ("you" in the aggregate) ... well if people really want a revolution, grassroots money is going to need to become a dependable and pervasive force in all elections ... not just in this election or for the top of the ticket, but downstream too. And there will need to be a system of distribution/allocation of some sort.

It should be no surprise why super-delegates are loyal to Clinton. It might have something to do with the way she has worked to help state efforts and down-ticket races over decades; that, and her demonstrated record as a money raiser. Unless we can find a different way to finance campaigns, the filthy lucre is what allows competition against big Republican dollars.

Bernie is raising impressive amounts via small donations, but his $$ need to be focused on his own election right now. It remains to be seen how much he can or will contribute to down-ticket races. I don't blame anyone running for office for trusting the established system over an unknown. While I'd agree the system could use changing, it's not going to happen in one election.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:33 AM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


In 2008, Democrats won a number of downticket elections, in part due to the Obama 'Hope and Change' message. The wins can also be attributed to the economic crash. In 2012, Democratic candidates saw the writing on the wall (thanks to the huge Tea Party win in 2010,) and distanced themselves from President Obama.

It is possible for a Presidential candidate to support Progressive Democratic candidates in ways that have nothing to do with funding.
posted by zarq at 9:51 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hey, does anyone have good numbers on how much Bernie's tax increases will cost without the supposed "healthcare premium" savings? I'm trying to figure out how much his plan would actually cost my family.
posted by corb at 9:52 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


We looked at this calculator.
posted by casaubon at 9:55 AM on March 31, 2016


Jesus Christ, 14,000$ more? Thanks, I was expecting about half that. Good to know.
posted by corb at 9:58 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Holy shit, is that accurate?

Trump (Yuuuge tax cuts, without explicit offsetting spending cuts.)
Pay $6,410 less (Tax rate: 14.2%)

Cruz (For most, 10% flat rate on income tax and 16% value-added tax.)
Pay $4,980 less (Tax rate: 15%)

Clinton (Taxes stay about the same.)
Pay $110 more (Tax rate: 18%)

Sanders (Big tax increases, mostly on the rich, to pay for big programs.)
Pay $16,520 more (Tax rate: 27.5%)

That can't possibly be right.
posted by zarq at 10:03 AM on March 31, 2016


I mean seriously, none of these candidates have detailed plans yet. How could any calculation possibly be accurate?
posted by zarq at 10:04 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


That calculator says I should vote for Trump. Oy.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:05 AM on March 31, 2016


It says both Hillary and Sanders are gonna raise taxes on people making under $5000 a year!?
posted by Drinky Die at 10:07 AM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


> Sanders (Big tax increases, mostly on the rich, to pay for big programs.)
> Pay $16,520 more (Tax rate: 27.5%)
> That can't possibly be right.


Why not? There would be no health insurance premium payment in that scenario. Last year, between me and my (generous) employer, we spent over $16,000 on our family health insurance.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:11 AM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


It says both Hillary and Sanders are gonna raise taxes on people making under $5000 a year!?

Income entered: $5,000

Trump
Pay $160 less (Tax rate: 6.6%)

Cruz
Pay $140 less (Tax rate: 6.7%)

Clinton
Pay $20 more (Tax rate: 7.7%)

Sanders
Pay $520 more (Tax rate: 10.8%)

No way.
posted by zarq at 10:14 AM on March 31, 2016


I just checked my payslip, and I spent $10,596.56 on health insurance premiums + deductible last year. NOT including my employer contributions.

(But my Bernie Sanders tax increase would be considerably more than that, according to Vox.)
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:15 AM on March 31, 2016


Why not? There would be no health insurance premium payment in that scenario. Last year, between me and my (generous) employer, we spent over $16,000 on our family health insurance.

I did not. My numbers are more in sync with OnceUponATime's.

48 million people in America are uninsured. Is their payment going to cover any tax outlay?
posted by zarq at 10:20 AM on March 31, 2016


Does that calculator also take into account that I'll be having to send a thousand bucks a month or so to my retired mom so that she doesn't end up living in a cardboard box on the street after the Cruz/Trump unpaid-for tax cuts destroy Medicare and Social Security?

Oh, it doesn't?

Stupid Vox.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:22 AM on March 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


I just checked my payslip, and I spent $10,596.56 on health insurance premiums + deductible last year (on a plan that just covers me and my kids, not my husband.) NOT including my employer contributions.

and

Why not? There would be no health insurance premium payment in that scenario. Last year, between me and my (generous) employer, we spent over $16,000 on our family health insurance.

*ranting starts*

If we really want serious health care reform in our lifetimes it is critically important that we change the way we talk about employer-provided healthcare and stop using language that sounds like even $0.01 of the employer portion of health care payments is anything other than compensation no different than our salaries.

No employer is generous in what they spend on health care, they are at most being over-competitive in retaining workers. While the word contribution is not wrong in the conventional use, it behooves us to take a lesson from the playbook the republicans have been running and drop it. It sounds too much like something we're getting based on someone's generosity, rather than in exchange for our labor.

In the last few years this has also turned out to be critically important in fighting against reproductive rights, as it gets framed as something employers ought to have any say in rather than no different than money they pay an employee who can then go spend it as they like, regardless of how the employer might feel about that purchase.
posted by phearlez at 10:29 AM on March 31, 2016 [18 favorites]


Hell, we should excise "employer-provided" as well and use... employer-coupled or employer-tied or "health coverage tied to employment." Even "employer purchased" is fraught, as it implies that it's the employer choosing to make a payment with their own money rather than spending our pre-tax salaries without much input from us.
posted by phearlez at 10:32 AM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


/r/GrassRootsSelect is a subreddit spinoff from the Sanders subreddit that is actively organizing around and encouraging donations to downticket candidates, in some cases quite effectively.

I haven't fully vetted them yet but they even have a website now. As I mentioned upthread, I believe social media will continue to have a bigger part to play in elections, and Reddit's message board like functionality is really conducive to organizing.
posted by kyp at 10:40 AM on March 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


Hell, we should excise "employer-provided" as well and use...

employer-controlled insurance is the phrase we should be using. We pay for it with our wages, our employers make the decisions for us.
posted by skewed at 10:44 AM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]




does anyone have any insight on what precipitated the drop in turnout that started in the early 1970s? It seems like from 1960 until then turnout was 60%/47% for presidential/midterm years, and then turnout drops about 10% for each of those numbers and never recovers.

Maybe it's the income gap? (Which has been increasing since about the 1970s)

It so happens that the gap between voters and non-voters breaks down strongly along class lines. In the 2012 election, 80.2 percent of those making more than $150,000 voted, while only 46.9 percent of those making less than $10,000 voted. This “class bias,” is so strong that in the three elections (2008, 2010 and 2012) I examined, there was only one instance of a poorer income bracket turning out at a higher rate than the bracket above them. (In the 2012 election, those making less than $10,000 were slightly more likely to vote than those making between $10,000 and $14,999.) On average, each bracket turned out to vote at a rate 3.7 percentage points higher than the bracket below it.

This class bias is a persistent feature of American voting: A study of 40 years of state-level data finds no instance in which there was not a class bias in the electorate favoring the rich—in other words, no instance in which poorer people in general turned out in higher rates than the rich. That being said, class bias has increased since 1988, just as wide gaps have opened up between the opinions of non-voters and those of voters.


And this might also account for why surveys show Americans are less conservative, but it's not reflected during voting:

Voters, [political scientists] Leighley and Nagler found, are more economically conservative; whereas non-voters favor more robust unions and more government spending on things like health insurance and public schools.

Other data collected on the national and state level support Leighley and Nagler’s thesis. A 2012 Pew survey found that likely voters were split 47 percent to 47 percent between Obama and Romney while non-voters preferred Obama 59 percent to 24 percent, a 35 point margin. A 2006 Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) study found that non-voters were more likely to support higher taxes and more government-funded services. They were also more likely to oppose Proposition 13 (a constitutional amendment which limits property taxes), dislike then -Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and support affordable housing.


So, with this there are a few things you can do to improve turnout. The article suggests generally to fight against attempts at voter suppression, to give felons their right to vote, and to push for laws that make voting easier and make voting registration easier.

I think in general it boils down to money and time. If people are spending their time working or taking care of their families they spend less time involved in the political process. So, the big picture is you want to reduce the income gap. And smaller or intermediate picture wise, you want to make registering and voting as convenient and easy as possible. And finally you also want to give more time and opportunities to people to go register, research issues and candidates, and to go vote.

Yeah, voter apathy, cynical politics, dull mid-terms, and uncharismatic candidates all affect turnout. But everyone faces these factors, yet it's the less well-off you are the less likely you are to vote.
posted by FJT at 10:55 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jesus Christ, 14,000$ more?

The average cost of an employer family health insurance plan is $17,500 per year. So you are getting $17,500 of health insurance for $14,000, a net gain of $3,500 in your income after taxes.
posted by JackFlash at 11:06 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean, since my current costs are 500$ a year, I'm still down $13,000 under that idea.
posted by corb at 11:14 AM on March 31, 2016


I mean, since my current costs are 500$ a year, I'm still down $13,000 under that idea.

No, you are ignoring the fact that your employer is paying something like $17,500 for your health plan which effectively comes out of your paycheck before you see it, whether you realize it or not.
posted by JackFlash at 11:19 AM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


They don't say so anywhere on that calculator, but you should be entering your AGI, not your gross income. If you contribute at all to retirement plans, an HSA, pay student loans, etc., it will overstate any results.

That said, it's already spit out some obviously silly results like the Bernie plan adding $500 in taxes to someone making $5,000/year (I seriously doubt he's going to raise taxes on people living below the federal poverty line), so I would not trust it to make any reasonable predictions w/r/t how any candidate's tax plan might work.
posted by indubitable at 11:19 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]




One problem with shifting away from employer-controlled (see, I'm using it!) healthcare is that even though the amount that employers spend on healthcare depresses wages by a similar amount, suddenly removing that cost to employers wouldn't immediately correspond with a similar boost to salaries. Economic theory suggests that to employers, this money is all the same since it goes to employees, and that's true, but removing this burden will also be at least a temporary windfall for as long as it takes for pressure in the employment market to build up enough to raise salaries. We've seen that that can take a long time in the last few decades.

I don't see this as an insurmountable problem, but it's a real issue with switching away from our current system.
posted by skewed at 11:26 AM on March 31, 2016 [7 favorites]




No, you are ignoring the fact that your employer is paying something like $17,500 for your health plan which effectively comes out of your paycheck before you see it, whether you realize it or not.

I'm really not seeing why this should be ignored. I mean, healthcare benefits are part of some people's benefits, yes. But that doesn't automatically mean that once those benefits are no longer necessary, everyone's salaries are going to rise to whatever amount they would have been if the employer had not been paying for insurance. That doesn't "come out" of someone's paycheck. If I'm paying an insurance through my before-tax dollars with each paycheck, that's my money which is being removed, not my employer's.
posted by zarq at 11:36 AM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


suddenly removing that cost to employers wouldn't immediately correspond with a similar boost to salaries.

There is no sudden removal of employer cost. The Sanders plan introduces a new 8.4% payroll tax (6.2 from the employer, 2.3 from the employee) in lieu of health insurance premiums. So the employer doesn't suddenly have a new windfall because they aren't paying for insurance. They are paying 6.2% in new payroll taxes. Effectively this is intended to be close to a wash. The employer, instead of paying money to a private insurance company, instead pays it to the government as a payroll tax which the government uses to provide single-payer health insurance.
posted by JackFlash at 11:38 AM on March 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


I mean, since my current costs are 500$ a year, I'm still down $13,000 under that idea.

That would be better described as having been up many thousands of dollars on anyone who isn't entitled to a lifetime of socialized medicine paid for by their former employer. Bringing a fraction of that level of healthcare subsidy to the non-senior, non-veteran population costs money.

But more importantly, the tax increase wouldn't just be for healthcare, it's for all of his other policy proposals, so this whole tangent connecting the estimated size of his tax increase to one specific category of spending is based on a false premise.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:39 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


does anyone have any insight on what precipitated the drop in turnout that started in the early 1970s?

Turnout has actually been flat-but-noisy since 1932. Or at least there's no simple trend term.

It looks like turnout has been falling since then because turnout is often, sloppily, expressed as the percentage of the voting-age population that voted. But just because you're of voting age doesn't mean you can vote -- most obviously you might not be a US citizen, or you might be legally disfranchised due to a criminal conviction. Both of these have gone up since the early 70s, but the main effect is almost certainly due to immigration -- there have been absolutely massive increases in immigration since the early 70s, when the foreign-born population was at its absolute lowest. Noncitizens are now something like 10% of the American population. Disenfranchisement due to convictions matters too but just isn't at the same numbers as immigration, thanks be.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:42 AM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


But that doesn't automatically mean that once those benefits are no longer necessary, everyone's salaries are going to rise to whatever amount they would have been if the employer had not been paying for insurance.

See the explanation above. The same money that is now going to a private insurance company will instead be paid to the government for government health insurance. There is no change in your after-tax income.
posted by JackFlash at 11:43 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Vox also put out this article a while back: We've lost sight of how wildly irresponsible the Republican tax plans are
You know what hasn't gotten enough attention in this election? How utterly ridiculous the Republican tax plans have become.

Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump are the top three contenders for the Republican nomination. Rubio has promised tax cuts amounting to $6.8 trillion, Cruz $8.6 trillion, and Trump a whopping $9.5 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center (and that's not including interest on the debt they would rack up!).

To put that in perspective, the tax cuts George W. Bush proposed during the 2000 campaign were $1.32 trillion — which would be $1.82 trillion in today's dollars. And taxes were higher in 2000 than they are today, and the country was running surpluses rather than deficits.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:44 AM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sanders: 'We'll See' If I Will Fundraise For Down-Ballot Democrats

O_o
posted by Justinian at 11:46 AM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


(that's me giving Sanders the side-eye)
posted by Justinian at 11:47 AM on March 31, 2016


I really liked Sanders on Maddow last night, but overall nothing has done much to reverse my feeling that he has a role, it's just not as President.
posted by zutalors! at 11:54 AM on March 31, 2016


Bernie Sanders's insurmountable delegate problem in one simple graph.

Yup, Sanders needs to do much, much better in New York.

I'm encouraged by his upwards trajectory in spite of having done little campaigning in NY, and the election being 3 weeks away.

Also, Zephyr Teachout's breakout campaign against incumbent Governor Cuomo (that managed to capture 1/3 of the Democratic primary votes) shows that there is a significant anti-establishment base in NY that he may be able to tap into.
posted by kyp at 11:55 AM on March 31, 2016


If I'm paying an insurance through my before-tax dollars with each paycheck, that's my money which is being removed, not my employer's.

That is an equivalent way of looking at it. In that case, that money being removed from your paycheck is effectively an implicit tax to buy private health insurance. The Sanders plan is to have an equivalent explicit tax to buy government health insurance. There is no change to your after-tax take home pay.

This misunderstanding is what makes the Sanders plan such a hard sell. He is introducing explicit taxes that replace implicit hidden taxes. This is an easier sale in European social welfare states where people are used to paying high taxes and getting large benefits from the government. In the U.S. people are more accustomed to privatization of benefits.
posted by JackFlash at 11:57 AM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


(that's me giving Sanders the side-eye)

He's currently losing a primary election. Or at least, he's behind in delegates at the moment. He shouldn't be expected to do anything but focus on correcting that situation right now. He has to place the short term goal before the long term one. Let him get through the nomination first, for heaven's sake.
posted by zarq at 11:57 AM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Thank you, JackFlash. I'm not entirely sure I'm grasping everything, but your explanations have been very helpful.
posted by zarq at 11:59 AM on March 31, 2016


Imagine President Sanders endorsing and holding rallies for downticket Dem candidates.
posted by kyp at 12:00 PM on March 31, 2016


Donald Trump in DC at Unannounced Meeting With RNC Chair

Trump has to win big in New York (likely) and California in order to avoid a contested convention. I would guess they're going to talk to him about what a contested convention would look like, encourage him to STFU about things like punishing women who have abortions, and also try to kill his dreams of a third party run.

Or maybe they're hoping for some Trump Steaks.
posted by zarq at 12:11 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]




Hillary says she is going to pass incremental improvements to Obamacare. Explain to me why Paul Ryan is giving this to her. You can't.

No Republican is giving anyone anything. That doesn't mean you can't take it.
You do that the same say Obama and Bill Clinton did: with a careful combination of

1) picking issues that either have some Republican support or have so much popular support that they can be useful against conservatives in the next election
2) Pick issues that can be won in the public discourse right now (Lily Ledbetter act, Family Leave)
3) be moderate when your margin is small and aggressive when its bigger
4) get Supreme Court on your side
5) elect people downballot. Crucial, and Bernie can't be bothered.
posted by msalt at 12:22 PM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


If this was the Congress of the 90s or of Obama's early term, I would be with you. But that is not what the next President is going to be faced with. The only things these Republicans will agree to pass is not shutting down the government...and that will only be agreed upon under extreme duress.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:26 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]




The only things these Republicans will agree to pass is not shutting down the government...and that will only be agreed upon under extreme duress.

In case you missed it, Congress passed some big bills in 2015
But after half a decade of divided government, in which congressional Democrats worked to stymie President George W. Bush and, conversely, congressional Republicans used every opportunity to block or roll back President Obama’s agenda, something changed in 2015: Congress passed significant bipartisan legislation that was signed into law by the president.

The list includes a major reform to the K-12 education system, a long-awaited fix to Medicare’s formula for paying doctors and a five-year agreement on how to fund the nation’s transportation infrastructure.
The article goes on to say that legislative progress will grind to a halt this year because it is an election year. But there is no reason to simply assume that Republicans will somehow grow more obstructionist under a Clinton or Sanders administration compared to President Obama's.
posted by zarq at 12:35 PM on March 31, 2016


Congress might be a tire fire right now, but they haven't been sitting on their hands and literally passing no laws at all. Some of them are, like, naming post offices, but some of them are actually great, like the microbeads ban. "The only things these Republicans will agree to pass is not shutting down the government" isn't literally true.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:35 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Imagine President Sanders endorsing and holding rallies for downticket Dem candidates.

I can't, and apparently he can't either. And that is precisely the problem.

Remember that George Clooney fundraiser Bernie complained about so hard? That had a big price tag because $341,000 of the $343,700 raised went to downballot races. Bernie attacked it. Hillary hardly got any of that money.

More broadly, his rhetoric is actively poisoning support for electing the Congresspeople he would need, and you can see it in his supporters in this very topic. "Why would they need my hard-earned money when they have gobs of Wall Street's filthy lucre?"

Remember that obnoxious Alaskan Levi Younger who was upbraiding the 60-something superdelegate on Facebook? She mentioned her 40 years of work for unions and he said she was supporting "your special interest" instead of "the people." UNIONS.
posted by msalt at 12:38 PM on March 31, 2016 [16 favorites]


Remember that George Clooney fundraiser Bernie complained about so hard? That had a big price tag because $341,000 of the $343,700 raised went to downballot races. Bernie attacked it.

He attacked it because of the price tag to get in, not the recipients.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:41 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


The price tag was BECAUSE of the down-ticket recipients! You know there's a $2,700 limit Hillary can get from any donor, right? It's not hard to do the math.
posted by msalt at 12:42 PM on March 31, 2016 [7 favorites]




roomthreeseventeen: He attacked it because of the price tag to get in, not the recipients.

Nope.
“It is obscene that Secretary Clinton keeps going to big-money people to fund her campaign,” Sanders said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday.

posted by zarq at 12:47 PM on March 31, 2016


I'm almost more offended by the clickbaity headline than I am by the (truly awful) Kasich quote.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:49 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Nope.

I'm not sure what you mean by nope. That's exactly right.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:49 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sanders showing that an alternate funding model that is crowd-based is viable and lucrative, and can be used by even downticket candidates. It is, in fact, already happening because of his example.

If he were to become President and and actively campaign for downticket candidates (and he hasn't said he won't msalt, so please don't misrepresent him), I believe that he will be able to educate and excite local voters to vote and donate.

And I'm not saying big-ticket fundraising will go away. How it will look under a Sanders presidency is interesting to discuss, and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't already having those conversations internally.
posted by kyp at 12:50 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


You said, "He attacked it because of the price tag to get in, not the recipients."

He didn't attack it just for the price tag. He said: "Secretary Clinton keeps going to big-money people to fund her campaign." Which means he is attacking her, the recipient as well as "the big-money people" whose monies are supporting other Democratic candidates. And again, she's not receiving that money. It is not going to her. The most she can collect from any of those tickets is $2,700, as msalt said.

She is the draw. The beneficiaries are other candidates. Exponentially so, compared to her.
posted by zarq at 12:53 PM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


Big money hasn't been able to prevent Dems losing majorities.

In fact, the irony is that big money is more effectively wielded against Dems in the form of supporting Republicans. Maybe that has something to do with the majority of "big money" being pro-business and special interests, not progressive interests.

We need less big money, and more small money.

The draw shouldn't be "give me all this money and I will send it to downticket candidate A".

The draw should be "I am an exciting progressive who draws huge donations and support, I will actively campaign downticket candidate A, please vote for and donate to her"

And the response to the inevitable "why isn't Sanders doing more of this then" is that, as an underdog, he has to worry about his own nomination right now.
posted by kyp at 1:05 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's just that he has been talking about winning a supermajority in Congress as the way to get his agenda passed, and the only way. When I complained that that was his answer in a debate, people told me any other answer would be lying. So...how's he going to get it?
posted by zutalors! at 1:13 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


John Kasich Just Made the Most Insanely Racist Statement of this Entire Campaign.

That's not anything new. When asked about diversity in the republican debates, Kasich always uses the phrase "our friends in the African-American community." For me that's pretty much the nice guy way of invoking that Chris Rock routine, saying some African-Americans are friendly to Republicans but the other ones are... well you know what they are.

Just google "Kasich 'our friends in the'" and you'll see he uses this condescending language for all minority groups when he wants to tell them what to do.
posted by peeedro at 1:13 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


The draw should be "I am an exciting progressive who draws huge donations and support, I will actively campaign downticket candidate A, please vote for and donate to her"

I agree. But when one is running for election to the top political spot in the country, sometimes it's easier to do collective fundraising than one-at-a-time. And if we're being fair, her focus also needs to be on winning the nomination, not downticket campaigning.

We need less big money, and more small money.

If we're going to vilify "big money" and make an assumption that Wall Street is going to try to buy a candidate's votes, it behooves us to at least note that there is a huge difference between wealthy liberal Hollywood donors (especially Clooney, who is an active philanthopist for humanitarian causes) and CEOs of finance industry firms who might to lobby the government on behalf of their industry.

That said, candidates need as much money as possible to win elections. From both big and small donors. And restricting oneself to one source or the other is unwise.
posted by zarq at 1:16 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


So...how's he going to get it?

I think he's hoping the Republicans play their Trump card. So to speak.
posted by zarq at 1:17 PM on March 31, 2016


But no one saw the Trump thing coming.
posted by zutalors! at 1:23 PM on March 31, 2016


I can't, and apparently he can't either. And that is precisely the problem.

Exactly. And I don't have to imagine Clinton raising lots of money to help other Democrats because she constantly has and is doing so.

Sanders was handed the softest of softball questions and he flubbed it.
posted by Justinian at 1:25 PM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


If we're going to vilify "big money" and make an assumption that Wall Street is going to try to buy a candidate's votes, it behooves us to at least note that there is a huge difference between wealthy liberal Hollywood donors (especially Clooney, who is an active philanthopist for humanitarian causes) and CEOs of finance industry firms who might to lobby the government on behalf of their industry.

I agree, which is why I said a majority of big money is pro-business special interest. There is certainly progressive big money, but it is a minority. Plus, big-money progressive interests don't align perfectly with the interests of the population at large.

So...how's he going to get it?

I think both candidates have viable ways of achieving congressional majority.

Clinton is a big money fundraising powerhouse, for herself and for most downticket candidates. Trump has dealt a serious blow to the Republican Party's image, and big money will move towards Democratic candidates (but will also continue supporting R candidates). I think it will move enough so that Ds get majority.

Sanders is a small money fundraising powerhouse, mostly for himself (and a few downticket candidates) right now. He will probably set another March record. No one has done this at this scale and volume before, so the playbook is new. I believe his model can and will be applied successfully to downticket candidates, and with the help of his bully pulpit and grassroots support, the Ds get majority.
posted by kyp at 1:38 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


But he's running on huge change and nothing but huge change, so I have zero idea of what he'd do without the supermajority. Clinton, it's easier to tell.

Also he was saying all this long before Trump emerged as frontrunner. The message wasn't "Republicans are going to ruin themselves" it was "people will just love my message so much it'll all work out."

I don't think it's unreasonable for people not to want to bank on that.
posted by zutalors! at 1:43 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also he was saying all this long before Trump emerged as frontrunner. The message wasn't "Republicans are going to ruin themselves" it was "people will just love my message so much it'll all work out."

Trump helps Clinton and Sanders in different ways.

Trump helps Clinton because he diminishes the Republican Party.

Trump helps Sanders by 1) exciting voters on all sides and increasing turnout 2) revealing to the population that Sanders is not an anomaly, that even on the Republican side voters can override the will of the establishment.
posted by kyp at 1:53 PM on March 31, 2016


It's just that he has been talking about winning a supermajority in Congress as the way to get his agenda passed, and the only way. When I complained that that was his answer in a debate, people told me any other answer would be lying. So...how's he going to get it?

That was me mostly. I talked about my view of how he plans to take back congress here. Personally, I don't think Hillary or Sanders will actually be able to do it until the next Presidential election. Maybe take back the Senate before then though.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:54 PM on March 31, 2016


This meeting between Preibus and Trump is pretty big. The RNC is basically letting Donald know that if he doesn't get 50%, he's not going to be the nominee. And Donald is most likely letting them know that if he's not the nominee, he's not going to play nicely. It's not clear what he could do with regard to a third party run though, don't most states effectively make that impossible with Sore Loser laws?

Man, I wish this whole thing was just a reboot of the the 7th season of The West Wing so I could enjoy the drama.
posted by skewed at 1:55 PM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


I can't believe that meeting was only supposed to be 10 minutes.
posted by zutalors! at 1:57 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


The most she can collect from any of those tickets is $2,700, as msalt said.

Bundling makes that just a sick joke. Yeah, so a dude buys a single 2,700 ticket, and brings along a check from 10 of his friends for another 27,000, with an effective handle of 30k per attendee...
posted by mikelieman at 1:57 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Whatever the amount is after bundling, the VAST majority goes to down ticket Dems, not Clinton.
posted by maudlin at 1:59 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


On review, I should have really said "Trump helps Clinton and Sanders for the following reasons, some help both of them equally, some help one disproportionately, and some may hurt one."
posted by kyp at 1:59 PM on March 31, 2016


Washington Examiner: GOP launches contested convention website

Huh. Some interesting takeaways:

* Guns will not be allowed at the convention. Permissible weapons include brickbats, cat-o-nine-tails, flails, harpoons, and shivs. No Molotov cocktails or other incendiary devices until the third ballot.

* If Paul Ryan is selected as the nominee, he must be discreetly notified ahead of time so that he can get to a darkened gym and perform a large number of reps and be seated at a bench with a towel draped over his neck when somebody breathlessly arrives to tell him the news, at which point he will stand up, facing away from the camera, remove the towel from his neck, and say "lord forgive me, it's time to go back to the old me."

* If Reince Priebus is to be sacrificed to the Old Gods for his failure of leadership, acceptable methods include the wicker man, blood-eagling, or casting him into a pit of Trump supporters stirred into battle-frenzy.

* The ratio of oil drum fires to delegates must be no greater than 1:8.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:00 PM on March 31, 2016 [32 favorites]


I love love love the hypocrisy between what the candidates say about open carry and gun-free zones, and their silence on weapons at the convention. Just love it.
posted by kyp at 2:05 PM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


Guns will not be allowed at the convention. Permissible weapons include brickbats, cat-o-nine-tails, flails, harpoons, and shivs. No Molotov cocktails or other incendiary devices until the third ballot.

"Brick Marco, where'd you get a hand grenade?"
posted by zombieflanders at 2:13 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC seems to make a big deal out of Wisconsin beating back Trump, but it looks like he's got the same 30% he always has, there's just fewer people to split the rest of the vote between and it's going to Cruz. I'm surprised Kasich isn't getting more pressure to get out.
posted by zutalors! at 2:26 PM on March 31, 2016


Dammit, it seems like the Trump boomlet is fading faster than I was hoping for. The ideal time for Trump to have made his abortion remarks, for example, would have been at his acceptance speech at the convention. ("And yes, we'll punish those slutty sluts for daring to make decisions about their own bodies - there has to be punishment! What? What? Did I accidentally tell the truth?")

Now, if the Trump boomlet fades, we do get the delicious schadenfreude of a contested GOP convention, but what comes out of that? A Cruz nomination is too terrifying and depressing to contemplate.

Dare I hope for ... Romney / Ryan?
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:39 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


using the Wayback Machine to look at the '08 and '12 GOP convention websites suggests that focus given to the rule-making on this year's site is exceptional -- almost as if there were plans afoot to change the rules at the convention to favor or disfavor...someone.

The Republicans fell victim to the fallacy of fighting the last war. In 2012 they witnessed the horror of the clown car embarrassment which prolonged the agony of their preferred candidate Mitt Romney in securing the nomination. So they changed the rules so that most of the states awarded delegates as winner-takes-all, allowing a leader to more quickly dispatch a flock of also-rans. Except they didn't count on Trump being that leader. Their winner-takes-all rule change has made it easier for Trump to cement his lead.
posted by JackFlash at 2:42 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm still hoping for a surprise James "Mad dog" Mattis nomination.
posted by corb at 2:45 PM on March 31, 2016


why did they let Trump run anyway?
posted by zutalors! at 2:48 PM on March 31, 2016


Larry Sabato has released his "Crystal Ball" Electoral College predictions for a Clinton vs. Trump match-up. It's not pretty for Trump.
posted by crazy with stars at 2:54 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


why did they let Trump run anyway?

Got to. It's America, man.
posted by Pink Frost at 3:27 PM on March 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


All the crystal balls in the world are not going to stop me fighting Trump. They've thought a lot of other shitty dictators would lose, too.
posted by corb at 3:43 PM on March 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


Clinton to Greenpeace activist: "I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me."
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:57 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump helps Sanders by 1) exciting voters on all sides and increasing turnout

I'm pretty sure this helps Clinton too.

I know this was discussed a while back, but I had a few thoughts about the tax policy thing:
  • Of course Bernie's plans require massive tax increases. How else do you expect him to pay for a massive healthcare overhaul and free college and everything else? Everything he is proposing is going to cost a lot of money. It has to come from somewhere.
  • Saying "well, you'll save that money because of [X] program" isn't that simple given the complexity of the systems we're discussing. For example, health insurance savings. It isn't that simple when almost 50% of the population is getting subsidized health insurance through their employer. It's not like their employer is just going to immediately add that money to their employee's paycheck. They might invest it in the company. Or hire more people. Or pocket it. In the long run the theory is we'll all see economic benefits via a healthier, more productive society, but it's completely unrealistic to expect that the short-term repercussions will be negligible.
  • Conversely, it's not surprising that tax-averse Republicans would provide the greatest tax decreases. The flip side is that those tax decreases are going to worsen the deficit and cripple the federal government. Which is basically their goal.
  • When candidates propose these policies, they are essentially promising an ROI. You have to ask yourself whether the ROI they promise is realistic, and whether it is worth the costs. Is it realistic to expect massive tax cuts won't have an effect on the ability of the government to provide fundamental services? And if it's not, is saving $5000/year worth roads falling into disrepair, social welfare programs collapsing, scientific research faltering? On the other side, if you're expected to pay an extra $5000/year do you expect the programs the government spends those on will provide immediate benefits? And if not, can you sustain the extra costs until that time when they do benefit you? And do you feel the proposed programs are the most effective use of that money?
I don't think the answer is as simple as "more taxes means more awesome programs, definitely worth it" or "less taxes means more money for me, definitely worth it". While I love the idea of having more money to spend, I am happy to pay more taxes for programs I think are worth the investment. But there's a cutoff point there, because I still need to be able to live.

Vox has been putting out a podcast called The Weeds, and it is nothing but glorious policy wonkery. It is great for adding context and nuance and I strongly suggest it to anyone who wants to think about the details and merits of different campaign proposals.
posted by Anonymous at 3:59 PM on March 31, 2016


Clinton to Greenpeace activist: "I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me."

Trending
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:02 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Though in some ways, The Weeds also makes these debates infinitely more frustrating because you start seeing the necessity for shades of gray, and campaigns with this level of vitriol only give a shit about soundbites and presumed "gotcha" moments.
posted by Anonymous at 4:02 PM on March 31, 2016


Live stream of Sanders rally in Bronx at 7:30pm EST, if you want to catch it.
posted by kyp at 4:04 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders supporters chant "If she wins, we lose" at Hillary rally and then walk out
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:05 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Though in some ways, The Weeds also makes these debates infinitely more frustrating because you start seeing the necessity for shades of gray, and campaigns with this level of vitriol only give a shit about soundbites and presumed "gotcha" moments.

And simultaneously to me posting that, a great example pops up in the form of this Greenpeace-#ImSoSick moment.
posted by Anonymous at 4:08 PM on March 31, 2016


Yea she's a little frustrated, so what.
posted by zutalors! at 4:11 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Washington Examiner: GOP launches contested convention website

I'm holding out hope for the triumphant return of Romney, in his chosen form, turning the convention into the long prophesied Romney Death Rally...
posted by bepe at 4:13 PM on March 31, 2016


* If Paul Ryan is selected as the nominee, he must be discreetly notified ahead of time so that he can get to a darkened gym and perform a large number of reps and be seated at a bench with a towel draped over his neck when somebody breathlessly arrives to tell him the news, at which point he will stand up, facing away from the camera, remove the towel from his neck, and say "lord forgive me, it's time to go back to the old me."

The towel kills the beard.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:13 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


wow Chris Matthews is thrilled with what he started with Trump's abortion comments.
posted by zutalors! at 4:37 PM on March 31, 2016


Sanders supporters chant "If she wins, we lose" at Hillary rally and then walk out

Eh, I would have went with "BRICKA-BRACKA FIRECRACKA SIS-BOOM-BAH! BERNIE SANDAHS BERNIE SANDAHS RAH-RAH-RAH!"
posted by FJT at 4:46 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Of course Bernie's plans require massive tax increases. How else do you expect him to pay for a massive healthcare overhaul and free college and everything else? Everything he is proposing is going to cost a lot of money. It has to come from somewhere.
I think that the free college proposal is to pay for it specifically with a tax on financial transactions like stock trades. (At least, that's what it said on his website the last time I checked. Now it says that he will tax "Wall Street speculators," which I guess is anyone who has investments? Does that count things like retirement accounts?) So at least the tax does mostly hit people with money, which is good, because a general tax to fund free college would be a pretty massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the middle through upper classes.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:51 PM on March 31, 2016


Of course Bernie's plans require massive tax increases. How else do you expect him to pay for a massive healthcare overhaul and free college and everything else? Everything he is proposing is going to cost a lot of money. It has to come from somewhere.

When Sec. Defense Alan Grayson takes office, he kills the F35 program, so we have 1.5 Trillion dollars over the next decade to spend on better things. There's plenty of other fat in 'defense', too, so let's just say for discussion THAT'S where the money comes from.

I suggest we roll-out a nationwide EHR system, using the proven VA's VistA platform, for free, for every provider, which will pay immediate dividends of reducing overhead, data duplication, and errors while providing clear benefits to patient care.
posted by mikelieman at 4:58 PM on March 31, 2016


Bernie has already told us that Wall Street owns every Congressperson other than him. How is that financial transactions tax going to pass?
posted by msalt at 4:59 PM on March 31, 2016


Bernie Sanders Public Schooling until grade 16 plan is paid for by a transaction fee on stock and bond trades.

Think of it like this. When I go buy a bottle of bourbon, I pay sales tax. Why shouldn't someone who buys a stock or bond NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE?

Take the daily volume, multiply by 8% ( Albany County, NY ) and there you are. All they money you need for every social benefit program. Shit, we can eliminate property taxes if my back of the envelope calculations are even close by an order of magnitude...
posted by mikelieman at 5:01 PM on March 31, 2016


Well, in general that's the $64,000 question.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:01 PM on March 31, 2016


How is that financial transactions tax going to pass?

Overwhelming Public support for them paying their fair share of sales tax on the sales of stocks and bonds? I mean, *I* am furious that we all are subsidizing these Wall Street Freeloaders.
posted by mikelieman at 5:02 PM on March 31, 2016


Unfortunately, neither mikelieman's outrage nor alleged "overwhelming public support" is legally sufficient to get bills through Congress under the current constitution.

When Sec. Defense Alan Grayson takes office, he kills the F35 program,

You mean the F35 program that Bernie supports? Which administration will hedge fund owner Alan Grayson be Sec. of Defense in?
posted by msalt at 5:06 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


At least, that's what it said on his website the last time I checked. Now it says that he will tax "Wall Street speculators," which I guess is anyone who has investments? Does that count things like retirement accounts?

I don't see why not. If you as an individual investor are trading a ton in your retirement account, you're already incurring costs with each trade that likely dwarf any transaction tax.
posted by indubitable at 5:07 PM on March 31, 2016




Think of it like this. When I go buy a bottle of bourbon, I pay sales tax. Why shouldn't someone who buys a stock or bond NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE?

The Securities and Exchange Commission already receives a fee on every stock sale made on US exchanges and over-the-counter venues.
posted by theorique at 5:18 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders needs to be clear about the taxes he is proposing. For example he often mentions Denmark and Sweden as ideals, but they have much higher tax rates than the U.S. The U.S. currently has one of the lowest tax rates among developed countries. The numbers below are taxes at all levels (federal, state and local) as a percentage of GDP:

U.S. 27%
Canada 32%
UK 39%
Sweden 46%
Denmark 49%

Just to go from the U.S to the Canada, would require increasing all taxes (federal, state and local) by almost 20%. To go from the U.S. to Denmark would require increasing all taxes by over 80%.

Sanders needs to be honest about what he is proposing, but that's going to be a hard sell to tax-averse Americans.
posted by JackFlash at 5:19 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


You mean the F35 program that Bernie supports? Which administration will hedge fund owner Alan Grayson be Sec. of Defense in?

You beat me to it. Apparently hedge fund opponent Bernie Sanders will appoint hedge fund owner/manager Alan Grayson to be Defense Secretary specifically in order to get rid of a program supported by hedge fund opponent Bernie Sanders.
posted by Justinian at 5:21 PM on March 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


The Securities and Exchange Commission already receives a fee on every stock sale made on US exchanges and over-the-counter venues.

The SEC Section 31 fee is minuscule, typically just a few cents on the typical transaction. It amounts to 0.002%. Sanders is proposing a 0.5% tax on stock transactions, a rate that is 250 times larger -- about $5 for a $1000 investment.
posted by JackFlash at 5:30 PM on March 31, 2016


wow, that article is really interesting. Sen. Sanders not so pacifist.
posted by zutalors! at 5:30 PM on March 31, 2016




Wow, I hadn't realized it would be that big, 50 basis points is huge.
posted by indubitable at 5:35 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't see why not. If you as an individual investor are trading a ton in your retirement account, you're already incurring costs with each trade that likely dwarf any transaction tax.
Okey doaky, this is where you are going to lose people. I have a retirement account through work. I honestly don't understand very much about how it works. I had a couple of choices, and I picked the one that seemed the best, and they send me a statement four times a year that tells me how my account is doing. And I honestly have no idea whether Bernie's plan is going to slam my retirement savings. You could say that I'm a very stupid person for not really understanding my own investments, but there you go. I assume that there are a lot of other stupid people out there. When you say "Wall Street speculators," people picture some rich dude in an expensive suit. But when you say "tax on stock transactions," people are going to start wondering if you're hitting their nest egg. And that's going to include a lot of middle-class people who have pretty modest investments.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:36 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


You beat me to it. Apparently hedge fund opponent Bernie Sanders will appoint hedge fund owner/manager Alan Grayson to be Defense Secretary specifically in order to get rid of a program supported by hedge fund opponent Bernie Sanders.

Well then, Since Hillary Clinton SURE isn't going to change shit, and apparently Bernie Sanders isn't going to change shit, We're All Fucked.

The lesson learned is that It literally doesn't matter who gets elected. They'll do whatever the fuck they want, and it's another generation of "Oil for the rich, and babies for the poor"

I guess the reality of "It doesn't matter who gets elected" does take a lot of the stress and anxiety out of the whole dog and pony show. ( didn't Bill Hicks do something about Bill Clinton getting sworn in and shown an alternative angle of the Zapruder film... I remember thinking that Obama was a Team Player when he flip-flopped on unlawful domestic surveillance in July 2007... )
posted by mikelieman at 5:39 PM on March 31, 2016


about $5 for a $1000 investment.

I don't know about you, but I pay $8 on every $100 I spend.
posted by mikelieman at 5:40 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


You could say that I'm a very stupid person for not really understanding my own investments, but there you go.

I mean, I could, but I didn't.

What I'm saying is that a transaction tax would have a greater impact on people who are already making a ton of transactions. And transactions already have a lot of costs associated with them. So it's not like people making a lot of transactions are cost-averse. If you're one of those set-it-and-forget people with minimal involvement with your retirement savings, you're not making a lot of transactions anyway and it would not affect you to the same degree.
posted by indubitable at 5:41 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't think we're going to change our overall comparable hawkishness until we stop being a superpower , which won't happen until we have a series of devastating ground wars in mainland America.

That's how Europe and Japan lost superpower and colonialist status. In that sense it doesn't matter who we elect.
posted by zutalors! at 5:43 PM on March 31, 2016


And I honestly have no idea whether Bernie's plan is going to slam my retirement savings.

No very much, assuming that you aren't an active trader. If you buy a stock mutual fund and hold it until retirement, your final portfolio value will be smaller by one-half of one percent. For example, instead of $100,000 in your account, you will have $99,500.

The people that it will affect the most are the active stock traders. For everyone else, it will probably make them richer in the long run since studies show that the more you trade, the more you lose. The tax will discourage that sort of destructive trading.
posted by JackFlash at 5:45 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ok, but what I'm saying is about the politics of the thing. You guys are arguing that this thing that will hurt Wall Street is going to be passed because of overwhelming public support. And I'm saying that I looked at that proposal and had no idea whether and how much it would affect me. And you are going to get a lot of people my age, who did not get free college, who delayed saving for retirement because they were paying off their own student loans, who believe that the Boomers are going to tap out Social Security and they are going to be on their own when they retire, and they are not going to look at this proposal and think "hoorah! Wall Street fat cats will pay for college!" They're going to think "crap, is the socialist dude going to tax my retirement account into oblivion?" I think that it will be very easy for Wall Street, with all its resources, to convince people that this is scary and threatening to small-time investors, even if it actually isn't going to affect them very much at all.

So yeah, I think you're either going to have to do a heroically good job at educating the public, with a lot fewer resources than your opponents have, or you're not going to be able to rely on overwhelming public support.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:52 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]




Sanders is proposing a 0.5% tax on stock transactions, a rate that is 250 times larger -- about $5 for a $1000 investment.

It may seem like that's only aimed at big entities and active day traders (who, presumably, are all evil or something), but such a tax would actually hit mutual funds and exchange-traded funds pretty hard - any instrument or investment vehicle that has to rebalance on a regular schedule would get hit really hard by this. Most small investors (401(k) etc) are exposed to the markets via mutual funds and ETFs so the costs will be passed on to them. Or, many instruments would no longer be feasible and the diversity of financial products available to customers would be less.
posted by theorique at 6:17 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Right, it should be a small flat fee. That would hit HFT type stuff without hammering Mutual Fund rebalancing or small investors. Sanders plan for a 0.5% tax on all transactions is a bad plan.
posted by Justinian at 6:25 PM on March 31, 2016


I was curious about what percentage of Americans own stocks, and according to Gallup 55% of Americans tell pollsters that they do. So we're not talking about a tiny number of Wall Street fat cats.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:28 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Education pays dividends.
posted by phoque at 6:31 PM on March 31, 2016


Well, now you've agreed on the concept, you're just arguing about the magnitude. Which, as this is a presidential primary rather than policy negotiations between Congress and the White House, is up for negotiation :-)

Ok, but what I'm saying is about the politics of the thing. You guys are arguing that this thing that will hurt Wall Street is going to be passed because of overwhelming public support. And I'm saying that I looked at that proposal and had no idea whether and how much it would affect me.

However, the shambling mess that is the Affordable Care Act managed to make it into law. By "shambling mess", I mean, it is way, way more complicated than just "charge this tax on all market transactions". Exchanges, banning recissions, Medicaid expansion, standards for plans, some awful convoluted scheme for subsidies via your tax return, etc., etc.
posted by indubitable at 6:31 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maybe I'm in the minority, but as an investor myself, I am inherently suspicious of diversity in financial instruments, because oftentimes it adds complexity and costs that benefit the financial institution rather than investors. For example, Morningstar research shows that passive index funds overwhelmingly beat actively managed funds that charge high fees.

If anyone has more info to share please do, I like being an informed investor.
posted by kyp at 6:39 PM on March 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


However, the shambling mess that is the Affordable Care Act managed to make it into law.
Well, sure, but don't you guys take the line that this only happened because Wall Street wanted it to happen, that it represented a complete capitulation of the Democrats to the massive power of big money? Bernie has to sell his proposal against the opposition of the very forces that his supporters think made the ACA possible.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:45 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


#imsosick is so so great. Fun fact: It's going crazy but it keeps getting removed from the twitter trending list.
posted by Trochanter at 6:49 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


#imsosick is so so great. Fun fact: It's going crazy but it keeps getting removed from the twitter trending list.

Sigh.OF COURSE it does.
posted by futz at 6:52 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


#imsosick of corporate-censored social media
posted by entropicamericana at 6:52 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well, sure, but don't you guys take the line that this only happened because Wall Street wanted it to happen, that it represented a complete capitulation of the Democrats to the massive power of big money?

I'm not sure who "you guys" refers to? I think if you're going to argue that a transaction tax is too complex for the average voter to understand, it's fair to point out that much more complicated stuff has been sold to the people and enacted into law. Sure, it's going to take work to sell anything, but the alternative is not trying, and I don't find that very appealing.
posted by indubitable at 6:52 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Right, it should be a small flat fee. That would hit HFT type stuff without hammering Mutual Fund rebalancing or small investors. Sanders plan for a 0.5% tax on all transactions is a bad plan.

My, what a coincidence. That's more or less what the Clinton campaign says.

Are we not capitalists? Ought we gripe about paying a small transaction tax for being able to participate in the system? Have you looked at your mortgage lately? Noticed how the interest is paid before the principal? Do you mind paying a much higher interest rate on your credit cards than this nominal financial tax?

Oh, and ought we consider how the money from this tax might be used? Maybe compare it to where the disposition of the profit in the private sector goes?
posted by CincyBlues at 6:54 PM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


Sigh.OF COURSE it does.

I'm watching it happen. #imsosick trending, which is tweets about the removal, is trending.

I'm just telling you.
posted by Trochanter at 6:57 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh no, I totally agree with you Trochantor! This is far from the first time that this has happened. Sorry for the ambiguity. It is angry-making and so obvious.and I hate that I sound like I need a tinfoil hat but the TWITter keeps doing this.
posted by futz at 7:04 PM on March 31, 2016


It's definitely happening. It'll be at 47.2k tweets and then gone.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:04 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think if you're going to argue that a transaction tax is too complex for the average voter to understand, it's fair to point out that much more complicated stuff has been sold to the people and enacted into law.
I'm not arguing that it's too complicated to understand. I'm arguing that there is a compelling counter-argument for many, many people, including many non-elite people, and it's one that is going to be put forth by really powerful and well-funded entities who are really good at convincing people of things. And one of the cornerstones of the pro-Bernie argument is that even though Congress is completely in the pocket of Wall Street, members of Congress will participate in his revolution because they will be swept along on a tide of popular opinion. I don't think the ACA passed because Congress was swept along on a tide of popular opinion, so it doesn't really prove anything.
Have you looked at your mortgage lately? Noticed how the interest is paid before the principal? Do you mind paying a much higher interest rate on your credit cards than this nominal financial tax?
I mean, I'm a renter, and I do everything in my power never to carry a balance on my credit card (singular), because those interest rates are completely predatory and basically a tax on people living paycheck to paycheck, so I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:05 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


And one of the cornerstones of the pro-Bernie argument is that even though Congress is completely in the pocket of Wall Street, members of Congress will participate in his revolution because they will be swept along on a tide of popular opinion. I don't think the ACA passed because Congress was swept along on a tide of popular opinion, so it doesn't really prove anything.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that broad new taxes or single payer health insurance are going to get through Congress as it is currently composed (or they shouldn't be). However, the entire House stands for re-election every two years, and just today I was hearing on NPR about how Republicans are seriously worried about losing the House if The Donald ends up being their nominee. If something breaks our way, I want someone in the White House ready to take maximum advantage of that situation.
posted by indubitable at 7:14 PM on March 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


This is a woman who was thrown out of Clinton's rally for protesting tonight.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


What I'm getting at is simply this: our laws are structured to favor the FIRE sector, and this tendency has accelerated since Nixon de-coupled the dollar from gold in 1971. And you've kind of answered your own question: "completely predatory." And yet we accept these kinds of rent-seeking, non-productive assessments on our earnings as a normal part of everyday life. I think your strategy is smart: Limit debt in general, minimize the amount of interest you pay with careful planning. I do the same (and lucky for me, after a long hard slog of making extra payments towards the principal on the mortgage, my house will be paid off this year.)

The common person's available strategies and tactics are limited in terms of how we cope with all the "vig" that is scraped off by rentiers. Am I suggesting that we dispense with all these mechanisms by which debt and credit flow in our system? No. There ought to be some fees to handle all of these consumer thingys. Do I think it could be more equitable? Yes.

So why all the fuss about enacting an across-the-board tax on transactions in this sector of the economy? Just as both the rich and the poor pay the same sales tax on commodities in their respective jurisdictions, why not apply the same standard to this sector of the economy? And you are right, there will be incredible push-back from powerful interests. But keep in mind that one of the reasons they are so powerful is that they have been taking advantage of a system that is inherently unfair at the moment.

For those who want a more detailed background of the sort of argument I'm making, read this 2004 piece from Michael Hudson, keeping in mind that this was written before the latest blowout in 2007-8.
posted by CincyBlues at 7:27 PM on March 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


BTW, A&C, how are you indenting paragraphs in your posts? I'd like to be able to do that on occasion but don't know how.
posted by CincyBlues at 7:29 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


blockquote Cincy
posted by Trochanter at 7:31 PM on March 31, 2016


Looks like Bernie will be on Colbert tonight:
Tonight! Wheel in the sky keeps on Bernin’… #LSSChttps://t.co/W5MfScOBb6— The Late Show (@colbertlateshow) March 31, 2016

posted by kyp at 7:32 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is a woman who was thrown out of Clinton's rally for protesting tonight.

I think she's saying she's the one who was yelled at in the video.
posted by Trochanter at 7:36 PM on March 31, 2016


Duh. Thanks, Trochanter!
posted by CincyBlues at 7:37 PM on March 31, 2016


I think she's saying she's the one who was yelled at in the video.

Yes, she is the one that got yelled at by Hillary.
She states very clearly that she is not campaigning for Sanders- but for Greenpeace. That all of the candidates have been asked to sign a pledge to not take money from the fossil fuel industry. Sanders is the only one that signed the pledge.
posted by yertledaturtle at 7:42 PM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


Pick issues that can be won in the public discourse right now (Lily Ledbetter act, Family Leave)

Oh, like when the majority of the nation didn't want war in Iraq so we didn't go to war in Iraq
posted by phearlez at 7:49 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think she's saying she's the one who was yelled at in the video.

Clinton raised her voice in the middle of a loud pop song playing at a packed rally. Let's be clear about the context, please.
posted by FJT at 8:04 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


However, the entire House stands for re-election every two years, and just today I was hearing on NPR about how Republicans are seriously worried about losing the House if The Donald ends up being their nominee. If something breaks our way, I want someone in the White House ready to take maximum advantage of that situation.
Ok, but who is this "we" here? It's possible (just barely, but possible!) that the Democrats will take the House. But if Democrats get elected in gerrymandered Tea Party districts, I don't think they're going to be radical, Bernie-style Democrats. (I'm not sure there are very many Bernie-style Democrats, which is why Bernie was never formally a Democrat until he decided to run for president.) I don't think they're likely to be Hillary Clinton-style Democrats, to be honest, because despite what Bernie and his supporters would have you believe, Hillary is not a conservative Democrat. I am not sure why anyone would expect Democrats representing conservative districts to fall in line with Bernie's radical plans. And I'm not sure that Bernie, who has a complicated relationship with the Democratic party, which he has simultaneously worked with, benefited from, and treated with a fair amount of disdain, is going to be best situated to take maximum advantage of a Democratic congress.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:04 PM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


Oh, like when the majority of the nation didn't want war in Iraq so we didn't go to war in Iraq

Wait, are you arguing we should fight for unpopular issues or are you arguing that the majority of the nation did not want to go to war in Iraq in 2003?
posted by FJT at 8:08 PM on March 31, 2016


She did raise her voice. And repeatedly pointed her finger at the activist. Did you get a look at her face? She was really angry.

Shit happens but there was much more to it than talking loudly over a pop song.
posted by futz at 8:09 PM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


Clinton raised her voice in the middle of a loud pop song playing at a packed rally. Let's be clear about the context, please.

She raised her voice just the right amount to shout down the protester.
posted by Trochanter at 8:09 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Maybe I'm in the minority, but as an investor myself, I am inherently suspicious of diversity in financial instruments, because oftentimes it adds complexity and costs that benefit the financial institution rather than investors. For example, Morningstar research shows that passive index funds overwhelmingly beat actively managed funds that charge high fees.

Um.. Passive index funds work because they are among the most diverse vehicles you can invest in. That diversity comes because you give the fund money and then they go out and buy a ton of different stocks. It's not like there's a stock called "renewable energy." The financial tax won't just hit you when you buy the fund. The fund itself needs to be rebalanced regularly to hit its index targets. Every time they rebalance, they pay the tax. That tax gets passed on to you. The low fees on index funds are entirely due to the fact that they're mostly automated to perform a ton of transactions. A 0.5% transaction tax would blow those fees up.
posted by one_bean at 8:12 PM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


So why all the fuss about enacting an across-the-board tax on transactions in this sector of the economy? Just as both the rich and the poor pay the same sales tax on commodities in their respective jurisdictions, why not apply the same standard to this sector of the economy? And you are right, there will be incredible push-back from powerful interests.

...and there will be incredible pushback from regular boring people with 401k's and 403b's like me who don't want to lose a half-percent of my retirement money-bin every time it gets rebalanced. Just playing with numbers, even if you assume that plans will only rebalance annually, this could easily cost a young person more than 10% of their retirement nest-egg by the time they retire.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:17 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Thanks one_bean, the more you know. I'll definitely be researching this subject more. In my mind diversity referred to diversity in different types of investment vehicles, but what you said applies more accurately to the taxation aspect of it.
posted by kyp at 8:18 PM on March 31, 2016


The fund itself needs to be rebalanced regularly to hit its index targets.

This is not true for cap-weighted (most) index funds.
posted by indubitable at 8:20 PM on March 31, 2016


Bernie's financial transaction tax is paying for free college. The income and payroll taxes are paying for healthcare. Look, depending on who you talk to he wants to increase spending by $20-27 trillion over the next ten years. That's for all his programs--and that just includes estimates for his early childhood education initiatives and the other things he hasn't elaborated on yet. That's redonkulous. It's a fantasy to think that financial transaction taxes are going to pay for all that. So yes, taxes are going up. It's worth going to the Tax Policy Center's report to see how they came up with those calculations.
posted by Anonymous at 8:22 PM on March 31, 2016


She did raise her voice. And repeatedly pointed her finger at the activist. Did you get a look at her face? She was really angry.

Bernie shouts and finger wags every time he speaks. Remember "Excuse me, I'm talking" with the finger wagging?

Why is Clinton not allowed to be angry? Why is she not allowed to raise her voice or point her finger?
posted by Anonymous at 8:25 PM on March 31, 2016


Why are we policing the volume and tone of the only female presidential candidate? I for one am ready to reclaim anger as a legitimate emotion that women can display.
posted by peacheater at 8:31 PM on March 31, 2016 [15 favorites]


any instrument or investment vehicle that has to rebalance on a regular schedule would get hit really hard by this.

Index mutual funds never need to rebalance. That is one of their great cost-saving features even without a transaction tax. Only active stock picking funds need to buy and sell regularly.

Retail investors can largely avoid the transaction tax by buying index mutual funds, which are financially more prudent even without a transaction tax. A transaction tax would simply encourage investment in these more efficient instruments.
posted by JackFlash at 8:32 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


The fund itself needs to be rebalanced regularly to hit its index targets. Every time they rebalance, they pay the tax. That tax gets passed on to you. The low fees on index funds are entirely due to the fact that they're mostly automated to perform a ton of transactions. A 0.5% transaction tax would blow those fees up.

It is not like everyone with one of these plans will be hosed - if it turns out the current investment models are no longer attractive, those wizards on Wall Street will work out a new way to set things up that does still make money.

It is a little like Stockholm Syndrome, the way we are all "investors" now... what if I just want a fucking pension? Why was that such a bad idea?
posted by Meatbomb at 8:37 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


She IS allowed to be angry. I never said she wasn't. I was just pointing out that it was more than just talking loudly over a pop song. Please don't put words in my mouth.
posted by futz at 8:39 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


The low fees on index funds are entirely due to the fact that they're mostly automated to perform a ton of transactions. A 0.5% transaction tax would blow those fees up.

No, cap-weighted index funds almost never have to perform trades. The only time they have to trade is if the fund is growing or shrinking. Generally people selling shares are balanced by people buying shares so no new trades are necessary. A cap-weighted index fund is "self-balancing". The values of its component stocks simply go up and down with the market -- no trading necessary.
posted by JackFlash at 8:39 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Stating facts about how Clinton responded to a young women's inquiry is not policing tone. No one that I know of has suggested that she cannot express anger. Bernie has been told that he needs to tone it down. His finger wagging was criticized as well.
Rightfully so.

Clinton reacted to a basically innocent, polite question from a young woman from Greenpeace in a somewhat belligerent manner. Anybody can observe this, (since there is video), and draw their own conclusions.
posted by yertledaturtle at 8:42 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Bernie's financial transaction tax is paying for free college.

It's going to cost way more than it brings in. If you manage to put $5000 into an account when you're 25, the government is going to get $5 from that, but with back of the envelope math that single $5 loss when you're 25 will cost you hundreds of dollars by the time you retire just from lost compounding.

Index mutual funds never need to rebalance.

Even if the funds don't, you need to. Leaving everything in stocks through your 50s and 60s is like "LET'S INVADE RUSSIA!" levels of Not Smart.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:45 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


(that should be $25 not $5)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:46 PM on March 31, 2016


If you manage to put $5000 into an account when you're 25, the government is going to get $5 from that, but with back of the envelope math that single $5 loss when you're 25 will cost you hundreds of dollars by the time you retire just from lost compounding.

This is true of literally every dollar you spend instead of save.

Index mutual funds never need to rebalance.
Even if the funds don't, you need to. Leaving everything in stocks through your 50s and 60s is like "LET'S INVADE RUSSIA!" levels of Not Smart.


You'd be surprised how much of this can be accomplished just by redirecting inflows vs. actually selling one asset and buying another. If you save enough that you also have a taxable account, it's almost a necessity (even the special long-term capital gains rate is way more than 0.5%).
posted by indubitable at 9:00 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was not policing her tone and of course she can point her finger. When I said shit happens I meant exactly that.we all lose our cool. How my comment got twisted into anything other than that sincerely confuses me.

I'd appreciate it if you (general you) didn't automatically assume ill intent from your fellow mefites.
posted by futz at 9:12 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Look, we can say we're "just stating facts". When news agencies talk about female candidates looking "haggard" or "unkempt" they're "just stating facts". When radio hosts go on about female candidates shouting a lot, they're "just stating facts".

It is not just about the accuracy of whatever facts we're stating. It's about what facts we choose to highlight, how often we highlight them, and about whom. When we disproportionately talk about female political candidates looking angry or shouting or finger-pointing--and we do--it's not because they shout more, but because we are influenced by implicit biases that drive us to censor the emotions of women over men.

So when Bernie has been yelling and finger-pointing with nary a remark about it in a billion-comment thread, and then the first time Clinton does it people feel it is necessary to discuss how angry she looks and how she was totally yelling at that poor polite protestor, when that happens? Yes, that is going to get some side-eye. I am 99% sure nobody here grew up in Themyscira, which means we've all spent our lives soaking in the patriarchy. It is far more likely than not that it plays a role in what we choose to focus on.
posted by Anonymous at 10:30 PM on March 31, 2016


I’m the Greenpeace activist who asked Hillary Clinton to pledge to reject fossil fuel contributions at the Purchase NY campaign rally


"Since the media, Twitter, and Facebook world have spread the video of me and Secretary Clinton, I thought that it’d be important to share my experience, and why I was there today.

I am an individual who deeply cares about tackling climate change and I’m deeply concerned about the state of our democracy. I work for Greenpeace USA as a Democracy Organizer. I do not work for and am in no way affiliated with the Sanders campaign, as Clinton seemed to suggest in her response.

Greenpeace USA along with 20 organizations launched the pledge to #FixDemocracy, asking ALL presidential candidates to reject future fossil fuel contributions, champion campaign finance reform and defend the right to vote for all.

When we launched the campaign, Sanders signed the pledge immediately. Hillary’s campaign responded, but did not sign. Unsurprisingly, the Republican presidential candidates who won’t even admit that climate change is real, while real communities on the frontlines are already impacted, did not respond to our request.

While Greenpeace appreciated Hillary’s response, the first step a candidate can take to stop fossil fuels is to stop taking fossil fuel money. That money matters when we hear great things about climate in Clinton’s speeches, but want to be sure she’ll truly listen to the people when she is in office. For instance, she supports a Department of Justice investigation of ExxonMobil and yet she takes money from an Exxon lobbyist. That level of coziness makes voters like me who prioritize climate change uncomfortable.

To prove to people that she’s really serious about keeping fossil fuels in the ground, she needs to stop taking that money today.

Today, I said to Hillary, “Thank you for tackling climate change. Will you act on your words and reject future fossil fuel money in your campaign?” I was genuinely shocked by her response. But I want to make sure we are focused on the issue at hand: asking our candidates to take a stand to Fix our Democracy. Rejecting fossil fuel money sends a strong signal.

Greenpeace, 350 Action, and dozens of concerned activists have been attending events, rallies, debates, and fundraisers for many months asking Hillary Clinton to reject fossil fuel money in her campaign. This is by no means the first time that we asked Hillary Clinton the question. In fact, last night, over 40 activists gathered outside of a Hillary Clinton Fundraiser at the Dakota, asking Senator Clinton to come out and talk to the people she is fighting for. She did not cross the street to talk to us.

To be clear, we are talking about more than just individual contributions from oil and gas employees. According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle. Eleven registered oil and gas industry lobbyists have bundled over 1 million dollars to her campaign.

If she takes the pledge, she’ll be sending a strong signal to our country and fossil fuel companies that it’s time to #Keepitintheground, not for the future of our planet, but for people that are living on it.

On April 18th in Washington DC, thousands of activists from groups like Public Citizen, the NAACP and Communications Workers of America will take action in an event called the Democracy Awakening to call on our leaders to get the big money out of politics, restore voting rights, and prioritize building a strong and healthy democracy. I’ll be there and I hope you’ll be standing beside me so that candidates like Hillary Clinton can’t ignore us any longer.

I hope that this video starts an important dialogue on the national scale about fixing our democracy and taking a stand against corporate interests like the fossil fuel industry, so we can run a democracy that is beholden to the people, not campaign contributions.

Thank you,

Eva Resnick-Day
Democracy Organizer
Greenpeace USA


posted by yertledaturtle at 10:43 PM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


Shroedinger,
I agree with you there is a double standard. It is not fair that women are judged differently than men.
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:48 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


So are we going to get any statements from people Sanders shouted at?
posted by happyroach at 11:15 PM on March 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


However, the entire House stands for re-election every two years, and just today I was hearing on NPR about how Republicans are seriously worried about losing the House if The Donald ends up being their nominee.
So Bernie won't be able to do anything for two years? After being promised radical change, his own supporters would be thoroughly discouraged, much less more skeptical independents and moderates. Do you really think they are going to sustain energy for 3 solid years of no results (counting this election year)? I would bet folding money against that.

Bernie won't even commit to the abstract idea of campaigning for downticket Democrats in the future. He's not going to sweep a Democratic majority into power this fall or in 2 years if he wins. The NPR analysts you heard saying there's an outside chance of Republicans losing the House are also assuming Hillary wins.
posted by msalt at 11:16 PM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


but with back of the envelope math that single $5 loss when you're 25 will cost you hundreds of dollars by the time you retire just from lost compounding.

You don't have to back of envelope anything. It's very straight forward. If you pay a 0.5% tax when you invest, at any point in the future, you will have 0.5% less money than without a tax .

In the example I gave previously, if your portfolio at retirement is $100,000, under a 0.5% transaction tax it would have a value of $99,500. (The actual value would be slightly less than this if reinvested dividends are taxed.)

In practice the tax would be split 0.25% each for the buyer and seller, but the round trip cost is the same since you buy once when you invest and sell once at retirement for a total of 0.5%.

Note that this tax is trivial compared to the fees that many mutual fund managers charge, which is more than 0.5% every year.
posted by JackFlash at 11:24 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Remember "Excuse me, I'm talking" with the finger wagging?

That was the time when Clinton interrupted him and tried talking over him while he was answering a moderator's question and wagging his finger everywhere, not particularly at Clinton. Or was it that other time when Clinton interrupted him and tried talking over him while he was answering a moderator's question and wagging his finger everywhere, not particularly at Clinton. I forget which time, because she seems to like trying to talk over him and yet few dare call her out for it, so it keeps happening.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:37 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


So are we going to get any statements from people Sanders shouted at?

That's up to them, isn't it?
posted by Drinky Die at 12:52 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Fred Clark: Donald Trump did not know the Standard Answer on criminalizing abortion, examining why there even is a Standard Answer.
posted by frimble at 1:02 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Cops: Teen Sexually Assaulted, Pepper Sprayed, Called ‘N**ger Lover’ at Trump Rally (cw: pretty much what the headline says)
-
The 15-year-old girl who was seen being pepper-sprayed in the face outside a Donald Trump campaign rally was charged with disorderly conduct, WMTV-TV reported.

Footage of the incident in Janesville, Wisconsin showed the girl being hit with the spray following a confrontation with a 59-year-old man she accused of groping her. Police said she was charged after their investigation produced no evidence that she was assaulted. However, she still said that an attack took place.

The video also showed her punching the man after the argument escalated. However, the unidentified man opted not to charge her with assault. Instead, Police Chief David Moore said that she will instead be referred to juvenile authorities, but is unlikely to be put in jail.

posted by Drinky Die at 1:55 AM on April 1, 2016


the majority of the nation did not want to go to war in Iraq in 2003?

Absent the fraudulent claims Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, et. al. were making, that is true. The majority of the nation did not want to go to war in Iraq in 2003.

It is worth noting that Bernie Sanders *did* perform his duty before voting and the required due-diligence examination of those fraudulent claims resulted in him correctly voting No.

It's a shame other legislators either (A) didn't perform their duty, or (B) just didn't have the skills and experience to do it correctly, but there you are.
posted by mikelieman at 3:17 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Note that this tax is trivial compared to the fees that many mutual fund managers charge, which is more than 0.5% every year.
I'm not sure people want to hear your voice of reason, JackFlash. I suspect that many folks who have 401(k) plans aren't even aware that the Department of Labor instituted a transparency rule a few years ago wherein fees have to be disclosed. (Though I must admit, reading through those disclosures can be much like reading through the fine print of a credit card contract or many other contracts nowadays. Frustrating.)

I guess that anti-Sanders criticism has now gone from "OMG! Free Stuff!" to a NIMBY-like "I don't want to pay for it." Not to mention that a financial transaction tax carries with it some of the same benefits that caused Tobin to argue for his currency transaction tax back in the early 70s. That is, putting a damper on arbitrage and other purely speculative trading. If folks would read through the memo I posted earlier they'll see that some of the calculations are based on a 50% reduction in trading activity as part of the scenario. Also, that memo is based on the (apparently) evil FTT that has been in place in Great Britain for quite a while now.
posted by CincyBlues at 3:21 AM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Interrupting your opponent's interruptions is the only way to stop them interrupting. In a televised debate you have a limited time to make your points, to say what you came to say. A debate is not an argument (arguments are down the hall, second door on your left). It's not unreasonable to insist that your opponent allow you to speak.

In today's encounter with the public, the candidate mistakenly assumed the questioner was a member of the enemy camp, and instead of addressing the question like a politician (evade, dissemble, agree to give it some thought) complained about being treated unfairly and turned away to shake the next hand. Etiquette rating: inelegant. Apology at eleven?
posted by valetta at 3:22 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Let's allow our candidates to be human, for crying out loud. That they do as well as they do with their interactions is a marvel to me given just how grueling it is to be on the campaign trail. If Clinton gives short shrift to what, probably the 50th person today getting in her face and asking a semi-challenging question, let's try to understand the context. And if we have it in our hearts, let's be sympathetic. If I had a dollar for every time in my life that I had a momentary lapse of cool-headed-ness, I could probably fund a nice buffet for all the posters on this thread.
posted by CincyBlues at 3:35 AM on April 1, 2016 [11 favorites]



So when Bernie has been yelling and finger-pointing with nary a remark about it in a billion-comment thread...


What thread is that? It surely is not this one, because Sanders' temper has been referred to several times here. I invite you to dial back the hyperbole.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:37 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


My local paper's top headline today is about our governor instituting ordering an across-the-board cut in higher education. As we debate how to make college more affordable for folks, let's remember that the Republican agenda is to squeeze, squeeze, squeeze all the marrow out of the bone. One of the reasons tuition has climbed so much over the past couple of decades is because of this concerted effort to view education as either a potential profit center or a fiscal drag and not as an investment in our future.
posted by CincyBlues at 3:45 AM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm not in or from America, so not my candidates, but the outcome of your election will, as usual, profoundly affect the rest of the planet and naturally I take an interest. When politicans are out glad-handing the public they need to be mindful that they're not engaging with their opponents, but with potential voters.
posted by valetta at 4:36 AM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Jesus wept. So she raised her voice. What does that have to do with her suitability as a candidate.
posted by angrycat at 4:38 AM on April 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


It's not the volume of her reply, it's the content: “I am so sick -- I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I am sick of it.”
posted by valetta at 4:48 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yes. And? What exactly is the offensive word here. Lying? Sick? Look, if you want Sanders to win and not divide the party, sell his fucking proposals. This is the laziest kind of advocacy in the world: picking at a small moment and extrapolating a sense of the candidate out of it.
posted by angrycat at 4:54 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


What exactly is the offensive word here. Lying? Sick?

The woman she yelled at was not from the Sanders campaign. She was a Greenpeace activist. And it isn't a lie. to say Hilary takes money from people who make money in fossil fuels. The entire interaction made no sense and got thousands of people riled up against her for no reason.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:00 AM on April 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Again, I am asking Metafilter people to please think about why it is that a small, yes, slightly impatient/frustrated/angry/belligerent comment from Clinton is getting so much more attention than many equivalent angry comments from Sanders. She reacted in a moment of frustration, which we all have. It is not reasonable to equate taking donations from those employed by the fossil fuels industry as equivalent to taking donations from the fossils fuels industry, and I can see why she would be frustrated that audience members would make that equivalence.

What, is she expected to check which industry potential donors work in before she takes a donation from them? That's a crazy idea. I'm sure that would go over well - "Hillary Clinton campaign refuses to take donation from receptionist employed by Shell". Personal donations are personal donations, no matter what industry the person is employed in.

When you repeatedly upbraid Clinton for mistakes of this nature, you play into the narrative that women must be perfect before they can be on a national stage, whereas men can continue to be their own selves. Then women are accused or being inauthentic or fake. And I, for one, am sick of it.
posted by peacheater at 5:09 AM on April 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


it seems like it got thousands of sanders supporters to get excited because they are still in denial about the delegate math and they think this is a gotcha moment.
posted by angrycat at 5:11 AM on April 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


it seems like it got thousands of sanders supporters to get excited because they are still in denial about the delegate math and they think this is a gotcha moment.

Or it looks like he's going to win Wisconsin, and he's increasingly going to have a good shot in New York, especially if she keeps doing things like this in New York.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:14 AM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Again, I am asking Metafilter people to please think about why it is that a small, yes, slightly impatient/frustrated/angry/belligerent comment from Clinton is getting so much more attention than many equivalent angry comments from Sanders.

Which equivalent moments? Seriously, has Sanders been caught on tape angrily yelling at an individual activist and saying they were just repeating lies from the Hillary campaign?

Anyway, she's running for President. Every single person who does that and has a serious chance gets every little story about them run into the ground. Being a dude didn't protect Dean from being basically painted as a psychopath in the media for yelling once. This was an own goal for Hillary, and it's perfectly natural for people to take issue with it. But, it's not going to damage her campaign in any perceivable way going forward. She has an effectively insurmountable lead in the primary and Greenpeace sympathisers aren't going to be lining up to vote for Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:22 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's pretty strange how advocacy for a specific candidate affects one's relationship to math.
posted by beerperson at 5:26 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Not every criticism is a gotcha. It's not inappropriate to scrutinise a politician's behaviour when interacting with the public. Take Trump (to Mars, preferably) - he cops it and rightly so all the time.

As far as policy goes, I have opinions about the TPP. When I've marshalled some links I'll drop 'em.
posted by valetta at 5:27 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


No, cap-weighted index funds almost never have to perform trades. The only time they have to trade is if the fund is growing or shrinking. Generally people selling shares are balanced by people buying shares so no new trades are necessary. A cap-weighted index fund is "self-balancing". The values of its component stocks simply go up and down with the market -- no trading necessary.

I guess that depends on your definition of "almost never". Here are the turnover ratios (a proxy for the amount of trading the fund does) for a few popular index ETFs:

IVV (iShares Core S&P 500): 4%
AGG (iShares Core bond): 318%
VXUS (Vanguard total international): 3%

The bond turnover might be less important as it's affected by maturities. But I don't think it's really accurate to say that cap-weighted index funds "almost never" trade unless a 4% turnover counts as "almost never".

Of course, the overall impact of a transaction tax on these funds would still likely be small compared to the effect on, say, high-frequency traders. But the cost would likely be noticeable when expenses are down in the few basis points.
posted by multics at 5:33 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


bernie shouts and finger wags every time he speaks. Remember "Excuse me, I'm talking" with the finger wagging?

Then he is equally un presidential.
posted by corb at 6:23 AM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


It is not reasonable to equate taking donations from those employed by the fossil fuels industry as equivalent to taking donations from the fossils fuels industry

And of course even if she'd taken money from particular companies that still wouldn't count as taking donations from the industry! </hamburger>
posted by XMLicious at 6:40 AM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


What I'm wondering is if the “I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me.” thing was intentional -- something she wanted to get out there. And even the forceful, virile smackdown.

Because if that's the case, we have yet another pretty big tactical blunder from a supposedly "safe, electable" candidate. It's a big blunder either way, though, because the #imsosick thing went really big.
posted by Trochanter at 6:44 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]




When you repeatedly upbraid Clinton for mistakes of this nature, you play into the narrative that women must be perfect before they can be on a national stage, whereas men can continue to be their own selves. Then women are accused or being inauthentic or fake. And I, for one, am sick of it.

I think it's possible to criticize her for getting angry or even losing her temper without that being sexist. Just as I think it's possible for him to be criticized for the same. We've seen several articles linked in this thread which talk about his personality, and how he isn't the nicest person to work for, or with. So that's not being ignored. But I'm sure you would agree that she shouldn't be held above reproach simply because of her gender, after all.
posted by zarq at 6:49 AM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


However....

The candidates are human. They're going to get frustrated and annoyed at times. They're under a lot of pressure. I don't think this incident says anything about her character or whether she's Presidential material. I don't think Sanders' at-times grouchy persona makes him unpresidential, either. This is who they are. They're not saints. They are not perfect. Expecting perfection from any political candidate is a sure route to disillusionment and disappointment.

One of them is going to be the Democratic nominee for President. There are going to be things we don't like about them. Things that piss us off about them. Things we don't trust them for and positions that we're unhappy they've taken. Our choice, as always, is to vote for a candidate we know is imperfect but best represents our values... or stay home and do nothing.
posted by zarq at 6:51 AM on April 1, 2016 [7 favorites]




Bernie Sanders is first candidate to be introduced by transgender person at large rally

Good!

Interesting that this was buried at the end of the article:
Transgender rights groups are also increasingly backing Ms Clinton, however, with “Trans United for Hillary” launching in February. Ms Clinton was introduced on Wednesday night at a fundraiser in New York by Angelica Ross, a black transgender woman and advocate.

posted by zarq at 6:59 AM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Angelica Ross is is Awesome. If you haven't seen "Her Story" on YouTube, spend an hour of your life watching.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:02 AM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm don't think I'm familiar with her. Thanks! Will watch.
posted by zarq at 7:03 AM on April 1, 2016


This article on the 12th Amendment possibility is a couple of weeks old, but seems as relevant as ever. The author contemplates Trump taking enough delegates to win the nomination outright so that there is no brokered convention. The frustrated Republican establishment then floats a third-party spoiler candidate appealing enough that nobody takes a majority of the electoral college votes. In such event, according to the Twelfth Amendment, the House picks the President.
posted by exogenous at 7:21 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


supposedly "safe, electable" candidate

you can't have this both ways. she can't be the most hated person ever and also "safe, electable."

Frankly #imsosick of the idea that people only want to vote for Clinton because they're scared, or clueless minorities, or old women, or love Wall Street, or whatever, or don't know enough about Bernie, or whatever.

She's got more votes than any other candidate. She mentions this often, because it's true. Donald Trump says the same thing, but it's a lie. Yet it's Hillary who's supposedly stealing this election without the support of any of "the people."

I honestly believe she will put women's rights at the top of her list. She talks about it at most of her speeches. I like Bernie's speeches, I like them a lot, but he doesn't mention women's rights as often. It's probably like topic 6 on his list.

That's fine, but as a 30 something single woman I have some priorities in my life right now that align with Hillary Clinton's focus on women's rights - fair pay, family leave etc. I don't think those necessarily resonate as well with like, Susan Sarandon, so her support as a woman might be different.

Anyway, I was just thinking this morning that six weeks ago I wasn't really sure who I was going to vote for between Sanders and Clinton. I was equally unsure in 2008 but broke for Obama around this time as well. There are a lot of things I don't love about Hillary Clinton. Frankly I think the fossil fuel industry employee bundling thing is a problem, as is trade, as is the Iraq vote.

But the vitriol about Clinton made me double down on support for her, and I know that some of my fellow 30 something (ie OLD, I'm about Chelsea Clinton's age) women feel the same.

I understand her frustration. I think she feels in her heart that she has been part of the progressive movement for over 40 years, she's been in the national spotlight for over 25 years, and she's had a lot of stuff thrown at her. I honestly can't think of anyone else in my lifetime, man or woman, in the political sphere who has been so prominent for so long, including her husband.

And yes, a lot of the crap thrown at her has been incredibly sexist, especially how people criticized her for her husband's affairs, which a lot of Bernie's college age supporters don't remember because they were born around then.

Comparing how she behaves to any other candidate is ridiculous. She has a drive that she has used to empower herself and other women, that has also hampered her from being able to empathize with people who don't have it. She's an often clumsy campaigner and yes, scores a lot of own goals on the trail.

But I genuinely believe she wakes up every day and thinks about what she can do to help others, and to make this country better, as Obama said every good President should do.
posted by zutalors! at 7:29 AM on April 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


This article on the 12th Amendment possibility is a couple of weeks old, but seems as relevant as ever.

That's almost certainly not going to happen. A 3rd-party ticket from the GOP establishment will be almost entirely limited to current GOP voters, giving the Dem nominee a huge EC and popular vote margin anyway.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:31 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The frustrated Republican establishment then floats a third-party spoiler candidate appealing enough ...

They had 17 chances this year and didn't find one yet ... maybe 18 will be the charm.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:32 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


think it's possible to criticize her for getting angry or even losing her temper without that being sexist.

people can criticize this without being personally sexist, but it still fits into a pattern of societal misogyny. this to me is what the "be mindful" calls are saying - they aren't calling people sexist or saying it's sexist to criticize clinton, or even saying not to bring it up, they're making a more nuanced point to encourage people to think about how to criticize and not accidentally fall into the traps the patriarchy has laid all around us. i think it does it a disservice to say people are suggesting she be above reproach.

We've seen several articles linked in this thread which talk about his personality, and how he isn't the nicest person to work for, or with. So that's not being ignored

i think part of the frisson is that the same people who said it was an unfair attack on sanders to bring up his temperament are now in a tizzy about how rude clinton is. it's almost like there's a double standard. i personally think that's because they advocate for one candidate above the other, not that they personally are sexist, but i can also see how it fits into the background radiation of women being policed harder for their anger.
posted by nadawi at 7:35 AM on April 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'm no Hillary supporter, but I do not think the yelling is the issue. First off, every show is 10dB too damned loud, so take that into consideration, so even if she's wearing hearing aides, there's one hell of an intelligibility issue for anyone.

With that said, her *response* did appear somewhat to be a bullet point she had on hand, but she just used it at the wrong time ( Greenpeace, not the opponent's campaign, and you know, facts... )
posted by mikelieman at 7:36 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I wonder if despite the context, this will turn into an endorsement narrative if he doesn't get the threshold number of delegates.

Bernie Sanders Says Hillary Clinton Has 'Moved Much Closer' to Him on Issues

I'd love to know how he thinks she's moved positions towards him, and on what issues. I don't think that's the case, but could be wrong.
posted by zarq at 7:38 AM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


mikelieman, I agree with that. The substance of what she said was the problem. It made her look like she had no idea what was going on.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:39 AM on April 1, 2016


That's almost certainly not going to happen. A 3rd-party ticket from the GOP establishment will be almost entirely limited to current GOP voters, giving the Dem nominee a huge EC and popular vote margin anyway.

At this point it would not surprise me if they had several dozen necromancers locked in a basement somewhere, desperately trying to resurrect The Gipper.
posted by zarq at 7:43 AM on April 1, 2016


people can criticize this without being personally sexist, but it still fits into a pattern of societal misogyny. this to me is what the "be mindful" calls are saying - they aren't calling people sexist or saying it's sexist to criticize clinton, or even saying not to bring it up, they're making a more nuanced point to encourage people to think about how to criticize and not accidentally fall into the traps the patriarchy has laid all around us. i think it does it a disservice to say people are suggesting she be above reproach.

That's fair.

i think part of the frisson is that the same people who said it was an unfair attack on sanders to bring up his temperament are now in a tizzy about how rude clinton is. it's almost like there's a double standard. i personally think that's because they advocate for one candidate above the other, not that they personally are sexist, but i can also see how it fits into the background radiation of women being policed harder for their anger.

That's also fair.
posted by zarq at 7:45 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


i didn't parse clinton's statement as her thinking she was absolutely talking to a bernie supporter, but rather that the lies (according to her) his campaign tells about her is giving incorrect impressions of her positions or actions. i also think #imsosick being a big deal or not depends on who you're following. no one i follow has seemingly used the hashtag and when i scroll down the general search it seems pretty evenly split between clinton/sanders supporters using it to promote their own talking points. i think those of us who spend all day online can get a pretty narrow view of what less connected people will find to be a huge deal.
posted by nadawi at 7:45 AM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


The substance of what she said was the problem. It made her look like she had no idea what was going on.

Can you explain what exactly was wrong with the substance of what she said? As I said above:
It is not reasonable to equate taking donations from those employed by the fossil fuels industry as equivalent to taking donations from the fossils fuels industry, and I can see why she would be frustrated that audience members would make that equivalence.

What, is she expected to check which industry potential donors work in before she takes a donation from them? That's a crazy idea. I'm sure that would go over well - "Hillary Clinton campaign refuses to take donation from receptionist employed by Shell". Personal donations are personal donations, no matter what industry the person is employed in.


If the Sanders campaign is characterizing taking donations from those employed in the fossils fuels industry as taking donations from the industry itself, that does seem like a lie to me.
posted by peacheater at 7:45 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I told a friend yesterday that I could see the republicans nominating the corpse of Reagan since the consitution doesn't say anything about being alive.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:46 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can you explain what exactly was wrong with the substance of what she said? As I said above:

It is not reasonable to equate taking donations from those employed by the fossil fuels industry as equivalent to taking donations from the fossils fuels industry, and I can see why she would be frustrated that audience members would make that equivalence.


I guess that's a difference of opinion. I think it's reasonable.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:48 AM on April 1, 2016


It made her look like she had no idea what was going on.

Or that she tried to twist the moment to fit a talking point she had. It was a non sequitur to a) bring in the Sanders campaign, and b) respond as if she'd been accused of taking money, not being asked about the pledge thing.

I also didn't think the volume was an issue. She didn't come off that bad.
posted by Trochanter at 7:50 AM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Charles Pierce: Is The Washington Post Going to Come Clean on This Clinton Email Correction?
When 147 could be 12, maybe you don't just stick that detail at the bottom.​

Chris Hayes: Eric Boehlert Details The Problematic Consequences Of Washington Post's Erroneous Clinton Email Report

Mainstream media repeatedly pick up Republican dubious talking points that can never really be walked back. Part of a continued organized propaganda assault Clinton has had to deal with for more than 20 years.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:50 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


What, is she expected to check which industry potential donors work in before she takes a donation from them? That's a crazy idea.

Donors are required to disclose their employer when they donate. It may be a bad idea, but it's not crazy.
posted by Etrigan at 7:51 AM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I guess that's a difference of opinion. I think it's reasonable.

Just to be clear here, if a gas station attendant donates to the Hillary campaign, that should count as a donation from the fossil fuels industry?
posted by peacheater at 7:51 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


In my mind diversity referred to diversity in different types of investment vehicles

This is still a good point to remember. You can get adequate asset class (broadly, stocks bonds and cash) diversification through low-cost index funds. There are also people who will tout the benefits of diversification of investment vehicles, which, in my opinion, should be given a big side-eye.

Also, just because a fund is billed as a passive/tracker fund, doesn't mean there won't be transactions, even if it's market cap weighted. Index fund turnover can vary wildly from fund to fund, as multics pointed out above. Index providers have really specific rules on index inclusion and companies fall in and out of (or are added/removed) from indexes all the time. Depending on how the fund manager tracks the index, this could result in higher turnover. It's still likely lower than a similar active fund, but it's not nothing, and it's disingenuous to not take into consideration the impact this could have on returns (especially, as multics also said, when we're talking about extremely low cost funds to begin with), when people (rightly) so strongly advocate the use of passive funds because of the considerable impact fees can have on returns.

I mean, I have no problem (personally) paying more in direct or indirect taxation to pay for things that benefit us collectively. But it seems to me that a FTT would do the following:

1. Impact the return on investments of regular people.
2. Impact Wall Street less than anticipated, because, being Wall Street, they'll come up with innovative and esoteric types of investments that can avoid or minimize the transaction tax
3. Make people feel good about sticking it to Wall Street, when in reality it negatively affects normal people more than it does the institutions that people want to punish

From a taxation-to-fund-social-welfare/benefits perspective, I have no issues. From a let's-make the-greedy-Wall-Street-people-pay perspective (which seems to be what it is heavily predicated upon), it's a terrible idea that, in my opinion, will not work as intended at all.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:52 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just to be clear here, if a gas station attendant donates to the Hillary campaign, that should count as a donation from the fossil fuels industry?

That's not a real question.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:53 AM on April 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


>>Just to be clear here, if a gas station attendant donates to the Hillary campaign, that should count as a donation from the fossil fuels industry?

That's not a real question.


Why is that not a real question? The gas station attendant would fill out their employer as "Exxon Mobil" or "Shell Oil" on the form, which would go into the FEC database.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 7:55 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Why is that not a real question?

Because here is what the candidates were asked to sign:

And I will prove that I work for the people by refusing money from fossil fuel interests and by championing these solutions for a people powered democracy on the campaign trail.

Someone who works at a gas station for $8/hour is not benefiting from fossil fuel interests.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:58 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Greenpeace isn't going to go through the FEC database and find every $5 contribution from an ExxonMobil employee in Pahrump, Nevada, to use against Clinton.
posted by Etrigan at 8:01 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Someone who works at a gas station for $8/hour is not benefiting from fossil fuel interests.

Yes, so it seems that you agree that personal donations from employees of the fossil fuel industry should not be characterized as donations from the industry itself? Because that category includes gas station attendants.
posted by peacheater at 8:01 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


This is not a new topic. It is also not the first time Clinton has been confronted on the campaign trail about this issue.

Mother Jones reported in July of last year that there were lobbyists from fossil fuel companies who had donated to the Clinton campaign.

NPR: FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton And Donations From Fossil Fuel Industries
The Center for Responsive Politics, parsing Federal Election Commission reports, finds that workers in the oil and gas industries have given Clinton $307,561 so far — compared to, say, $21 million from the securities and investment industry, or $14.4 million from lawyers and law firms.

Put another way, the oil and gas money is two-tenths of 1 percent of Clinton's $159.9 million overall fundraising. It roughly equals the amount Sanders raised every 16 hours in the first quarter of 2016.

The Sanders campaign has relied primarily on small donors, although it, too, lists more than $50,000 in oil- and gas-related donations.

On the Republican side, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has received more than $1 million in donations from employees of the oil and gas industry, while Donald Trump, who's relying on small donors and his own fortune to fund his campaign, drew just $10,000 from individuals tied to the fossil fuel business.

The industry total here doesn't include lobbyists with fossil-fuel clients, and it doesn't do what the Republican opposition research group America Rising did: include corporate money to the Clinton Foundation. The presidential campaign cannot raise corporate money.

Behind the questions to Clinton is a pledge "to refuse money from fossil fuel interests," which Greenpeace and other progressive groups want the candidates to sign. Sanders did so when it was announced in January.

In an analysis last December, FactCheck.org didn't rate the issue of Clinton's fossil fuel funds, but it didn't get very excited about it either. The analysis also looked back at her Senate campaign, where the industry contributions were equally paltry.

posted by zarq at 8:03 AM on April 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


1. Impact the return on investments of regular people.

I don't understand this objection. Like, yes, of course it will impact the return of investors, but that money doesn't just evaporate, it goes to fund programs that help other people. Progressive taxation always creates winners and losers, this is just a way to do that while also making a particularly dangerous "investment" activity less attractive.

Will financial firms find other ways to screw people? Of course they will, but that's not a valid reason to oppose taking action to stop this particular way of screwing people. When you figure out what the next one is, you take steps to stop that. It's always going to be a cat and mouse game, but you don't just throw up your hands because it might hurt the returns of some people who don't live in McMansions.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:11 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't know. The list of Bernie Sanders's biggest donors is dominated by huge Silicon Valley tech companies, which have their own issues. Alphabet Inc (which is to say Google) is number 1; Microsoft is number 4; Apple is number 7. So can we assume that Bernie is responsible for all the problematic aspects of those companies or that he'll support every questionable policy that would benefit them?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:14 AM on April 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


>No, cap-weighted index funds almost never have to perform trades.

>I guess that depends on your definition of "almost never".


A reasonable definition of almost never is a 4% turnover for a stock index fund. Compare that to your typical active managed fund, say Janus, which has a 60% annual turnover, 15 times higher. Other actively managed funds commonly have turnover ratios over 100%. In that context it is reasonable to say that index funds have almost no turnover.

But the cost would likely be noticeable when expenses are down in the few basis points.

No it wouldn't. An index fund with an annual turnover of 4% would incur a tax expense of 2 basis points, that is, $2 for every $10,000 invested. That is almost unnoticeable.

So the financial transaction tax would have a tiny impact on the typical retail investor if they avoid heavy trading. The brunt of the tax would fall on heavy traders.

Look, the UK has had a 0.5% transaction tax for decades -- in fact some sort of transaction tax for centuries. Their stock market is doing just fine. The Sanders financial transaction tax is a great idea and hits Wall Street right where it makes the most sense, useless trading to run up profits by taking money out of investors' pockets.
posted by JackFlash at 8:26 AM on April 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Pretty cool what's happening in Chicago today.
posted by Trochanter at 8:31 AM on April 1, 2016


But it seems to me that a FTT would do the following: 1. Impact the return on investments of regular people.

No it wouldn't. As I pointed out above, the annual tax cost on the typical stock index fund would be only $2 per $10,000. This amount would be almost unnoticeable to regular, retail investors.
posted by JackFlash at 8:35 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


This article on the 12th Amendment possibility is a couple of weeks old, but seems as relevant as ever.

That's almost certainly not going to happen. A 3rd-party ticket from the GOP establishment will be almost entirely limited to current GOP voters, giving the Dem nominee a huge EC and popular vote margin anyway.


I'd been waiting for the doomsday scenario (and not wanting to think about it and give them any ideas), so thanks for bringing it up and soundly defeating it. I'm still not sold though. These jerks want power, and if they can use the House to pick whoever they want as president, they'd do it. Of course if you already have the power to pick a president if the nation is split, maybe you already have the power. And all you need to do is keep the nation split.
posted by cashman at 8:50 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




Sanders Camp Says Clinton Owes Him An Apology For 'Lying' Accusation: “I think she probably owes the senator an apology for that because the senator is not lying about her record," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said on MSNBC. "He’s talking about her record. He’s talking about her practices. She obviously doesn’t like it, but that doesn’t make it lying because you don’t like it.”
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:54 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


At this point it would not surprise me if they had several dozen necromancers locked in a basement somewhere, desperately trying to resurrect The Gipper.

They prefer to be known as mortality truthers.
posted by corb at 8:56 AM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I bet George Gipp really fucking hates Reagan for his nickname appropriation.
posted by beerperson at 8:58 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders Camp Says Clinton Owes Him An Apology For 'Lying' Accusation: “I think she probably owes the senator an apology for that because the senator is not lying about her record," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said on MSNBC. "He’s talking about her record. He’s talking about her practices. She obviously doesn’t like it, but that doesn’t make it lying because you don’t like it.”
Did you read the responses people had for you above-thread? Sanders has taken 50k from employees of the fossil fuels industry; Clinton has taken 300k. If she is guilty of taking money from the fossil fuels industry, so is he. However really neither amount can be characterized as taking money from fossil fuel interests, as 1) Those are really pitifully small amounts 2) Those are personal donations, such as from our hypothetical gas station attendant. If the Sanders campaign has characterized that as Clinton taking money from fossil fuel interests, they're being hypocritical, and yes, lying. If anything, she is owed an apology.
posted by peacheater at 9:01 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


And you know, Bernie's dependence on tech industry funds is particularly concerning giving the report that was released recently about the massive income and racial disparities between direct tech employees and the contractors on whom the industry relies for support services. The key findings:
Over the past 24 years, the number of Silicon Valley jobs in subcontracting industries has grown three times as fast as overall Silicon Valley employment.

TODAY:
10% of direct tech employees are Black or Latino.
58% of blue-collar contract industry workers are Black or Latino.
Average annual pay for direct tech employees is $113,000.
Average annual pay for blue-collar contract industry workers is $19,900.
Median annual rent in Santa Clara County is $21,444.
So what kind of revolution do you think that the direct tech employees, who are bankrolling Bernie's campaign, actual want?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:02 AM on April 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Did you read the responses people had for you above-thread?

I don't see how those responses are relevant. The Sanders campaign isn't reading them. I posted an article about the Sanders campaign believing they deserve an apology. They aren't reading this thread.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:03 AM on April 1, 2016


It was during an earlier attempt to resurrect Reagan when the dimensional portals were improperly warded that the unseelie sprite known as Reince Priebus entered this plane of existence to wreak mischief, and while the gippermancers were distracted by his antics, the eldritch sludge demon the world would later come to know as Ted Cruz followed him through the portal
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:04 AM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


the demanding apologies part of any campaign season is so embarrassing to me.
posted by nadawi at 9:09 AM on April 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


She should certainly apologize to the Greenpeace organizer she yelled at.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:11 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Look, the UK has had a 0.5% transaction tax for decades -- in fact some sort of transaction tax for centuries. Their stock market is doing just fine. The Sanders financial transaction tax is a great idea and hits Wall Street right where it makes the most sense, useless trading to run up profits by taking money out of investors' pockets.

Haha, don't bring your foreign examples in here, this is America! Your Canadian single-payer systems and your UK financial transaction fees and your Scandinavian welfare schemes which have all been working fine for many years will NEVER WORK HERE because FREEDOM. So don't even try it with your "facts" and "examples" and "real-world, large-scale case studies".

This is a lot of what makes people support Sen. Sanders, by the way. Because he does the very common-sense thing of saying "Hey, those folks over there are doing it like this and it seems to be working okay, let's give it a go?" As opposed to Sec. Clinton's "Oh well it won't ever happen so let's just not talk about it and pretend that my presidency won't just be a slight brake on the slow-motion collapse of the US economy, governance structure and social safety net."

Sen. Sanders is the true pragmatist in this race; he rightly understands that things are pretty fucked up right now and that some big changes are needed. He has correctly pointed out that major legislation is needed on several fronts to address these issues, and has correctly identified the only way to get that done, which is liberal majorities in the House and Senate and a clear mandate from the American people to implement these changes.

Sec. Clinton is the one pretending that the meager scraps of legislation she can drag out of Congress as currently constituted are going to fix our problems; there's idealistic messianism for you.

So people can complain all they want that he doesn't have a good solution for getting the Congressional majorities he needs. But neither does Sec. Clinton. And no, doing a bit of fundraising for the DNC won't cut it. All the money in the world won't overcome a gerrymandered-to-hell legislature without a clear message.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:14 AM on April 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Especially since Greenpeace != Sanders, which makes Hillary's accusations of lying seem a little paranoid.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:16 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]



Haha, don't bring your foreign examples in here, this is America! Your Canadian single-payer systems and your UK financial transaction fees and your Scandinavian welfare schemes which have all been working fine for many years will NEVER WORK HERE because FREEDOM.

This is so disingenuous. No one here talks about anything happening or not happening because freedom.
posted by zutalors! at 9:18 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


she didn't accuse the person standing in front of her of lying. i mean, that's one way to take the statement i guess, but it doesn't seem like the most obvious, as she didn't say "you're a liar" but instead accused the sanders campaign (not even sanders directly) of lying.
posted by nadawi at 9:19 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


No one here talks about anything happening or not happening because freedom.

Maybe not here on Metafilter, but I have right-wing family members that see any form of socialist medical care to be the government imposing itself on the free market, and if we just lower taxes some more, they'll surely compete to give us the best care.
posted by Fleebnork at 9:27 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


and are those people voting for Clinton? Also. tivalasvegas was pretty clearly taking aim at people here.
posted by zutalors! at 9:32 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I said, in response to peacheater: "But I'm sure you would agree that she shouldn't be held above reproach simply because of her gender, after all."

I've been thinking about this a lot. Especially since nadawi's reply here.

I want to apologize to you, peacheater. Because this was a shitty thing for me to say. You weren't saying that Clinton should be above criticism. Neither had anyone else in the thread. You were addressing a combination of both sexism that you felt was occurring in the thread, combined with a double standard of criticism by people who had excused Sanders for similar behavior. I treated that as a gotcha by echoing one of the worst sexist arguments against women.

I'm very sorry for doing that.
posted by zarq at 9:34 AM on April 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


and are those people voting for Clinton? Also. tivalasvegas was pretty clearly taking aim at people here.

It looked to me more like ALL CAPS because SARCASM. You know... MERICA.
posted by Fleebnork at 9:36 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


This has been a contentious thread at times, but zarq, that was pretty damn classy.
posted by Salieri at 9:37 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


This is so disingenuous. No one here talks about anything happening or not happening because freedom.

I use that as shorthand for "American exceptionalism". Of course MeFites and other Good Democratic-Leaning Folks are not nearly so gauche as to petulantly rename french fries; but it amounts to the same thing, and it certainly does happen here.

E.g., I point you to every discussion ever about health care reform on the Blue. All kinds of ridiculous arguments are made against single-payer (which, I should note, is itself a moderate-capitalist system as opposed to the fully nationalized systems like the NHS in the UK). And none of those arguments are actually valid when you look at the real-world examples of places as unexotic as Ontario, Canada. But no, we are told by the entire political establishment. It will not happen here. It cannot work here. For reasons. Don't even bring it up.

This is not pie-in-the-sky idealism. This is not privileged trust-fund lefthippieradicalism. It's people who are suffering right now from lack of access to care, quality affordable education, adequate built infrastructure, fair policing, racial justice, affordable housing, and on and on, saying that we need change, and we can't wait much longer.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:39 AM on April 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Yea zarq, that was great. Also, I agree with nadawi, we're just asking for people to be mindful. I think criticism of Clinton as a politician is valid, as are criticisms of sexist commentary about her and the double standards in play. Those things are going to have to coexist. Personally I always feel a bit of dissonance when people say "this has nothing to do with sexism" because that's just not possible. If we agree, as we usually do, that we're all soaking in institutional sexism/racism, etc, it's never true that something has nothing to do with it.

And criticisms of women shouting are definitely going to get people's back up so we should be mindful there.
posted by zutalors! at 9:42 AM on April 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Thank you zarq! I really appreciate that.
posted by peacheater at 9:44 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


You know, I've been thinking about the parallels between techbros and Berniebros, but the fact that the Sanders campaign is talking money from the tech industry basically confirms it. The advertising without actual substance, the relentless negative attacks, the subtle and not-so subtle racism and mysogyny...Yeah. It all fits.

Even the single player plan fits the techbro ideology- treat the employees like shit, and dust the costs of catering for them into the general population. Likewise the anti-union attack- very Silicon Valley

It's not too late of course- if Sanders apologizes for talking the money of the tech industry and gives it back, and disavows all future contributions, then I'll consider voting for him. Otherwise I'll just think of him as the equivalent of Uber for politics. "Yeah! Disrupt the system!"
posted by happyroach at 9:47 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


The "Berniebro" thing is no less offensive than criticizing Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. Metafilter should be better than that.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:49 AM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Every time i hear about Hillary and the fossil fuels thing, I keep thinking about the episode of Veep where the plastics industry was mad at Selena for dissing plastic spoons and the environmental lobby made her use cornmeal spoons that melted in her coffee.
posted by zutalors! at 9:52 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


So what kind of revolution do you think that the direct tech employees, who are bankrolling Bernie's campaign, actual want?



I want a minimum wage increase to $15. I want it inflation-indexed so it will always reflect reality.

I want healthcare for all, because I want other people to have the security I have. I don't mind paying more taxes for it, because it benefits me too.

I want everyone's kids to be able to go to public colleges and pay $0 tuition. Every single child.

I want an end to the disgusting policies like mass incarceration that decimate the families and wealth and voting rights of the Black community.

I want Citizen's United gone, and the Voting Rights Act or a superior law reinstated.

ArbitraryAndCapricious and happyroach, Snowden recommended this article that explores what is, I feel, the actual threat of the tech sector to democracy.

We are the 99%. If they divide us, they win.
posted by kyp at 9:53 AM on April 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


I use that as shorthand for "American exceptionalism".

Okay, how can we be accused of this, when we also point to countries like Germany who have universal care without single payer as solutions? Maybe we just don't like the British and the Canadians.

In the end, I'll be good with whatever increases people covered, provides decent service, and doesn't cost too much for everybody. I don't understand why there's folks that are so single-minded about single-payer!
posted by FJT at 9:53 AM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


In addition to The Weeds, I've also been listening to Whistlestop, which provides history to different presidential campaigns. It's fascinating both for the insight it gives you into the history of the parties, the tactical planning and negotiation that goes into campaigns themselves, and how the very process of campaigning has evolved. The Art of Political Umbrage goes into how umbrage and pandering were first introduced on a widespread scale into US presidential campaign politics, and how they were so successful that they've been a prime tactic ever since.
posted by Anonymous at 9:54 AM on April 1, 2016


The actual quote from the Sanders campaign at the beginning of the "NPR Fact Check" article (which didn't make it into the above excerpt) says
"The truth is that Secretary Clinton has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal industry," said Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs.
but then it goes on to completely ignore the fossil fuel lobbyists and ex-fossil-fuel lobbyists who make up "nearly all" of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Clinton, who back in July 2015 had already brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars. For some reason that quote is being juxtaposed with this $300K number, the present total that is only for individual contributions classified as industry employees.

Does anyone have a "fact check" article that, in the course of supposedly examining the truthfulness of statements, compares things said about individual contributions to numbers for individual contributions, or statements like the above specifically about the actions of lobbyists with actual facts about the actions of Clinton-affiliated lobbyists?

I'm also inclined to wonder how many of said lobbyists are also superdelegates.
posted by XMLicious at 9:54 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


schroedinger, I've also liked 538's podcasts and KCRW's Left, Right, and Center, though the latter is really personality based.
posted by zutalors! at 9:55 AM on April 1, 2016


The "Berniebro" thing is no less offensive than criticizing Hillary Clinton because she's a woman.

Are you serious? A nickname for Sanders's most odious supporters is as offensive as remarks that directly reflect patriarchial attitudes and the thousands of years of oppression and abuse they've perpetuated? Do you also think "hick" is as offensive as the n-word?
posted by Anonymous at 9:58 AM on April 1, 2016


zutalors!, I've been listening to 538, too. I'll have to check out the other one. I have been dealing with my anxiety about this election using obsessive consumption of politics podcasts and playing Neko Atsume.
posted by Anonymous at 10:00 AM on April 1, 2016


that was super awesome of you to say, zarq. thank you.
posted by nadawi at 10:01 AM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]




Thanks for the link to Whistlestop, schroedinger. I'm definitely going to check that out.
posted by Salieri at 10:07 AM on April 1, 2016


538 had a great episode about the use of demographic data in campaigns, which went all the way back to William Jennings Bryan, when his wife and brother would read through letters sent to him and mark down any identifiers like location, occupation, age, etc of the sender and then used that data for insights.
posted by zutalors! at 10:08 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


but then it goes on to completely ignore the fossil fuel lobbyists and ex-fossil-fuel lobbyists who make up "nearly all" of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Clinton, who back in July 2015 had already brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars. For some reason that quote is being juxtaposed with this $300K number, the present total that is only for individual contributions classified as industry employees.

Bundled or unbundled, they are all the same -- individual contributions. It is illegal for corporations or lobbyists to contribute directly to presidential candidates. The totals are of individual contributions. By law, if the contribution is over $200, the contribution must be publicly reported including the occupation or industry of the individual contributor.
posted by JackFlash at 10:09 AM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


All the money in the world won't overcome a gerrymandered-to-hell legislature without a clear message.

What if you have a clear message and a lot of people just disagree? ~50% of Americans vote for the Republican in any given presidential election. Whatever happened his first election, George W. Bush won the popular vote in his second election.

I don't hear Clinton saying "These socialist ideas won't work here." I hear her saying "A lot of Americans don't want to implement those ideas here, and we need to take their wishes into account. We need to find a compromise that's acceptable, because otherwise we're not going to make any progress on anything."

Whereas I hear Bernie saying, "No compromise! We will not negotiate with terrorists Republicans! European-style social democracy or bust!"

Like, okay, but 50% +/- 2% of voters don't want that, Bernie? What are you going to do about them? And yeah, I think they're morally in the wrong about a bunch of stuff. But they exist (and many of them are working class), and they vote, so?

I guess he thinks they're all dupes, fooled by the bought-and-paid-for politicians and the corporate advertising money? That if we can just shut the corporate fat cats up, or shout louder than them, all those Republicans will realize they've been conned, and get on board? But I just don't see that happening.

I think Republicans are mostly people who believe in a Just World. Who believe we have a society where if you work hard, you'll be rewarded. The Just World fallacy is a super comforting idea. "It can't happen to me." "If something bad happens to you, you must have done something to deserve it." And it's really, really endemic in American culture. It's part of our national mythology of self-made men and the American dream, individualism and the frontier and the Protestant work ethic and all of that. This belief that we are in control of our own fates. It's got a huge amount of cultural inertia behind it.

And yes, cultures can change, and I guess in a way what he's trying to do is change our culture. But what's frustrating to me is knowing that's not going to happen in four years or eight years, and in the meantime? People still need help. And there are some ways of helping them right now that are going to have a lot easier time winning support among Americans as they exist today than what Bernie is proposing.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:15 AM on April 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


“Not only has Clinton’s hair changed since the campaign season, it seems to change just about every day,” said a 1994 piece in the San Jose Mercury News. “Just this week alone, her ‘do went from softly feathered bangs on Tuesday to sleekly coiffed pageboy sans bangs on Wednesday. It’s most discomforting for the national sense of identity, Clinton watchers mutter. After all, you wouldn’t want the Statue of Liberty changing her hemline every other week.”
...
posted by zarq at 10:16 AM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Okay, how can we be accused of this, when we also point to countries like Germany who have universal care without single payer as solutions? Maybe we just don't like the British and the Canadians.

In the end, I'll be good with whatever increases people covered, provides decent service, and doesn't cost too much for everybody. I don't understand why there's folks that are so single-minded about single-payer!


Well, sure. The German / Dutch model is certainly an option, which as far as I can see is not radically different to the ACA-established system; it's more a matter of their having had a long time to standardize things, tighten regulations and generally align everything. (Myself, I oppose it when compared to single-payer because it is substantially more complex than single-payer and I think that implementing it is going to see the same kinds of regulatory capture issues that the ACA has; not to mention that we already have several single-payer systems that could be expanded, merged and administratively simplified to achieve universal coverage, whereas when the German system was developed that was not the case.)

But, to my larger point, that kind of argument is not what I'm critiquing; it's the arguments that come up about how "this could never work in the US because reasons".
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:23 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


had a long time to standardize things, tighten regulations

Whoah, whoah, whoah, slow down there, Trotsky.
posted by Trochanter at 10:31 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


But, to my larger point, that kind of argument is not what I'm critiquing; it's the arguments that come up about how "this could never work in the US because reasons".

The four reasons that make sense to me are not insurmountable. But they need to be addressed and can't simply be waved away or answered with "we'll just push it through" because let's face it, the real world doesn't work that way.

1) The cost needs to not place an added burden on those who need the coverage the most.
2) Any change in coverage needs to be done thoughtfully, with careful attention to detail paid to when and how people go to the doctor and what their actual needs are. I talked about this a bit upthread.
3) A single-payer nationalized system cannot be put in place without addressing some of the the reasons why the original push for the public option failed in the first place.
4) Unless Campaign Trump™ completely derails the House and Senate elections, there will be a Republican majority. How will a nationalized single payer system be possible if that's the case. What safeguards are being put in place so people who gain healthcare won't have it taken away when the Republicans once again take control of the Executive Branch.
posted by zarq at 10:37 AM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


A nickname for Sanders's most odious supporters

Sample size of 1, but I know multiple people that use "Berniebros" as a dismissive term for all Sanders supporters. It's become a synecdoche for some.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:38 AM on April 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


I don't think of it as all Sanders supporters. I get a very clear image in my mind though when I thnk of it.
posted by zutalors! at 10:40 AM on April 1, 2016


I don't hear Clinton saying "These socialist ideas won't work here." I hear her saying "A lot of Americans don't want to implement those ideas here, and we need to take their wishes into account. We need to find a compromise that's acceptable, because otherwise we're not going to make any progress on anything."

I think that's a fair point. My response would be that, well, people want a lot of things, many of which are contradictory. Tea Partiers famously waved around signs demanding that Obama keep his government hands off their Medicare. Elderly Trumpists bellow about "the takers" on the way to cashing their Social Security checks.

Looking at the record of what has been done in the split-government era of the last 6 years, I don't see much cause for optimism. As noted upthread, the government was able to pass some legislation in the last few months of 2015; but the consistent trend has been inaction; shutdowns or near-shutdowns with last-minute short term patches; sequestration and moderate austerity; and deficit-funded spending.

Worst case scenario for both Sec. Clinton and Sen. Sanders is 4 more years of the same. Best case scenario for Sec. Clinton is some miracle of a Democratic majority in the House this year or '18 followed by mild reforms; and for Sen. Sanders, the same followed by the very real potential for significant reforms. I just don't see much reason to expect a better outcome from a Clinton presidency than a Sanders one from my political vantage point, except for the fact that I do think it would be good on a number of levels to have a woman President.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:42 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sample size of 1, but I know multiple people that use "Berniebros" as a dismissive term for all Sanders supporters. It's become a synecdoche for some.

That was the point I was inelegantly trying to make. Sanders has millions of supporters who are women, LGBT, low-income, people of color, and yes, white men. Many are disenfranchised.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:42 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


A nickname for Sanders's most odious supporters

Sample size of 1, but I know multiple people that use "Berniebros" as a dismissive term for all Sanders supporters. It's become a synecdoche for some.


I wonder about this, too. Am I a BernieBros? I'm a white man that supports Bernie Sanders for President. If BernieBros. are some sort of constituent of Sanders Supporters, what differentiates them? I was at the rally yesterday and the amount of white men wasn't that high. Is there a specific name for the most odious of Clinton supporters? What is it and what defines them?
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:42 AM on April 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Got back into this article finally (I can't load it all at home, it's too big and times out before my modem can download it all) .. and still with the berniebros sniping. sheesh.
posted by joeyh at 10:45 AM on April 1, 2016


Haha, don't bring your foreign examples in here, this is America! Your Canadian single-payer systems and your UK financial transaction fees and your Scandinavian welfare schemes which have all been working fine for many years will NEVER WORK HERE because FREEDOM. So don't even try it with your "facts" and "examples" and "real-world, large-scale case studies".

We do indeed have data from FTTs introduced in other countries. The results have not been as positive as one would hope, and often have unintended consequences (like, for example, making companies trading on foreign exchanges more appealing to investors and therefore drastically lowering the expected revenue). If you'd like to share some of the "real-world, large-scale case studies" that have demonstrated that FTTs have produced the expected revenue, didn't reduce liquidity, didn't distort domestic vs. foreign markets, didn't cause companies to respond by "moving" overseas, or didn't negatively impact middle class investors, then I would LOVE to see them. I love the idea of making college affordable for everyone. I love the idea of doing that by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute more of their share to public education. I care about lessons learned from other countries that are more progressive. I like freedom. I don't particularly like people in high finance that don't seem to contribute much to the economy but make millions of dollars a year doing so. I would like to curb unnecessary, convoluted financial trading schemes that increasingly eat up portions of our GDP. I don't think an FTT that's two to three times higher than anywhere else on earth is a great idea, although I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.
posted by one_bean at 10:45 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


The "Berniebro" thing is no less offensive than criticizing Hillary Clinton because she's a woman.
It's not often that Bernie supporters manage to render me completely speechless, so congratulations, I guess.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:47 AM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Mod note: This is my relatively polite "cool it with the proxy fights about respective candidate supporters" note of the day. Please let me leave it at that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:47 AM on April 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


By law, if the contribution is over $200, the contribution must be publicly reported including the occupation or industry of the individual contributor.

Exactly my point - rather than examining the truth or falsehood of the Sanders campaign's actual statements about the money brought in by lobbyists engaged in bundling, the NPR "fact checker" and the people in this thread are handwavily picking whichever spreadsheet column to sort upon which will produce a believable but not-too-high number, and then acting as though that's an analysis of the Sanders campaign claims or a response what the Greenpeace activist was saying:
According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle. Eleven registered oil and gas industry lobbyists have bundled over 1 million dollars to her campaign.
If you're going to pull a BEEP BOOP QUESTION DOES NOT COMPUTE and pretend that these things can't even be asked about you've got to deal with the HuffPo analysis from last July (and maybe others? Wherever this is all originally coming from) and explain why the same analysis couldn't just be re-run with current numbers.

Or maybe you could just act all confused and say something about a building's lobby in the vein of "Wipe the server, what, with a cloth? hyuk hyuk hyuk"
posted by XMLicious at 10:55 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't think an FTT that's two to three times higher than anywhere else on earth is a great idea.

False. The UK has had a 0.5% tax on stock trades for decades, the same as the Sanders proposal. They are doing fine.
posted by JackFlash at 11:01 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Reuters' latest (March 29th) rolling poll is out now for Clinton versus Sanders, for those who want to analyze trends (it has some nice filters).
posted by kyp at 11:09 AM on April 1, 2016


According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle.

Ah, see they are pulling the old switcheroo on you. They are lumping together the Clinton campaign and independent superPACs. You should be comparing the Clinton campaign and the Sanders campaign, which shows $300,000 for Clinton and $50,000 for Sanders from fossil fuel individuals. The demand for a pledge is nonsense and hypocritical.

SuperPACs are required by law to be independent of candidates. In fact it would be illegal for Clinton to tell an independent superPAC what type of contributions they should or should not take. That sort of coordination is forbidden. The largest superPAC supporting Clinton is the one founded to support Obama in the 2012 election.
posted by JackFlash at 11:46 AM on April 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


The Defense Industry’s Surprising 2016 Favorites: Bernie & Hillary


While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.

posted by zutalors! at 11:47 AM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Nevertheless, Sanders collected at least $310,055 from defense contractor employees, including at least $45,652 from employees of Boeing and at least $36,624 from employees of Lockheed Martin — more than Clinton received from either group. Two-thirds of Sanders’ total and 95 percent of his individual contributions from the defense industry came in amounts of $250 or less, while Clinton was more reliant on contributions of at least $1,000, including many from company managers.

I mean, the spin on this one is easy.
posted by dis_integration at 12:06 PM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Worth it just for the article title:
G.O.P. Fears Donald Trump as Zombie Candidate: Damaged but Unstoppable

... Republicans who once worried that Mr. Trump might gain overwhelming momentum in the primaries are now becoming preoccupied with a different grim prospect: that Mr. Trump might become a kind of zombie candidate — damaged beyond the point of repair, but too late for any of his rivals to stop him.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:18 PM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I mean, the spin on this one is easy.

"Spin" is right. Without seeing actual numbers for Clinton's contributions, "more reliant" is meaningless push-language.

And the flip side of "Two-thirds of Sanders’ total and 95 percent of his individual contributions from the defense industry came in amounts of $250 or less" would be something like "the top 5% of Sanders' defense-industry contributors--those who gave more than $250--provided [more than / almost] a third of his haul."
posted by dersins at 12:23 PM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


it's almost like the defense, oil & gas, and financial industries employ hella people, many of whom donate to political campaigns for various reasons
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:29 PM on April 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


It's from Tiger Beat on the Potomac, so take it with a grain of salt: Delegates ready to flee Trump at contested convention
The reality of a contested convention has become more real than ever, with Donald Trump facing the risk of losing Wisconsin next week, meaning he’d have to win roughly 60 percent of the remaining delegates to win the Republican presidential nomination outright.

If Trump heads into the convention without the magic number of 1,237, already more than a hundred delegates are poised to break with him on a second ballot, according to interviews with dozens of delegates, delegate candidates, operatives and party leaders.

In one of starkest examples of Trump’s lack of support, out of the 168 Republican National Committee members — each of whom doubles as a convention delegate — only one publicly supports Trump, and she knows of only a handful of others who support him privately.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:57 PM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


my feelings about the GOP convention have gone from OH BOY GET THE POPCORN to genuinely hoping nobody gets seriously hurt
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:00 PM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


zarq wrote:
1) The cost needs to not place an added burden on those who need the coverage the most.
2) Any change in coverage needs to be done thoughtfully, with careful attention to detail paid to when and how people go to the doctor and what their actual needs are. I talked about this a bit upthread.
3) A single-payer nationalized system cannot be put in place without addressing some of the the reasons why the original push for the public option failed in the first place.


1) Yes. Premiums should be on a sliding-scale based on income, with the lowest-income group waived from premiums altogether (presumably this would be roughly the group that now qualifies for ACA Adult Medicaid at <133% poverty line). The easiest way to do this is to have it automatically withheld from paychecks, with any reconciliation happening on one's taxes (similar to how withholding for income taxes works now). Copays and deductibles should either be non-existent or easily waivable at point-of-service for qualified low-income persons so that people don't have to front the cash and then wade through reimbursement procedures later.

2) Yes, absolutely. The best way to achieve this is to eliminate networks altogether by creating a publicly-run insurer that providers and drug companies have no choice but to work with, i.e., single payer. I'm not sold on a national system to be honest, as states may be better positioned to deal with local needs -- but also, looking at the political situation in many states and the shameful politicization of the Medicaid expansion, this may not be an option (or the federal government might need to find workarounds to expand coverage in conservative-controlled states).

3) yes, and regulatory capture is made worse by complexity -- a huge plus with single-payer is that it is easier to understand, easier to sell to a skeptical public, and easier to implement when compared to ACA/German-type multi-payer, mixed public-private models). This is an objection based on politics, and I'm sensitive to the reality of the situation: but I don't see very much more room for incremental changes to the current system without actual legislation to amend the PPACA, and that kind of quiet sausage-making legislative process is precisely where lobbying interests have a lot of power, since public attention only happens when a big change is proposed.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:09 PM on April 1, 2016


my feelings about the GOP convention have gone from OH BOY GET THE POPCORN to genuinely hoping nobody gets seriously hurt

You can do that while still enjoying popcorn, though.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:15 PM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]






Mr. Trump might become a kind of zombie candidate — damaged beyond the point of repair, but too late for any of his rivals to stop him.

That is not dead which can eternal lie, and For the 1st time in American history, with strange aeons even death may die: Nyarlathotep has issued a presidential primary endorsement—me!

Shub-Niggurath -- Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?

Bwah ha ha, can't kill the undead monster.
posted by y2karl at 1:24 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


my feelings about the GOP convention have gone from OH BOY GET THE POPCORN to genuinely hoping nobody gets seriously hurt

You can do that while still enjoying popcorn, though.


(with apologies for non-gender-inclusive language):
If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow;
he has prepared for him his deadly weapons,making his arrows fiery shafts.

Behold, the wicked man conceives evil and is pregnant with mischief
and gives birth to lies.

He makes a pit, digging it out,
and falls into the hole that he has made.

His mischief returns upon his own head,
and on his own skull his violence descends.
I can't bring myself to get too worked up about Republicans fighting each other.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:27 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


False. The UK has had a 0.5% tax on stock trades for decades, the same as the Sanders proposal. They are doing fine.

The Stamp Duty Reserve Tax has an exception for intermediaries (e.g. pension funds), which is notable as it exempts some 70% of all transactions. I've seen nothing that indicates that any proposed FTT would have a similar exemption which means that while we may have increased revenue, costs would also increase for everyone, either directly through transactions (including in funds people hold in their pensions) or indirectly through increased bid-ask spreads. I think there are better ways to increase tax revenue which are both less stealthy and don't have a bunch of other unintended consequences. I also think there are better, smarter and more effective ways to regulate Wall Street.

It's always going to be a cat and mouse game, but you don't just throw up your hands because it might hurt the returns of some people who don't live in McMansions.

I agree, but then let's just do something that's more transparent. This tax seems straightforward, but it's not. It's another cost that will mostly borne by regular people in ways that are incredibly difficult for them to uncover. I like that it's progressive but I'm not convinced that it wouldn't have bad knock-on effects on the rest of us with little of the intended benefits.
posted by triggerfinger at 1:30 PM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I can't bring myself to get too worked up about Republicans fighting each other.

So people who you disagree with politically are evil and deserve violence? Awesome. Are you sure you're not a Trump supporter?
posted by dersins at 1:33 PM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


No, I don't think they deserve violence. I just have a lot more compassion for people who are actual victims of their ongoing assholery.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:37 PM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I just have a lot more compassion for people who are actual victims of their ongoing assholery.

I totally agree with you! Perhaps you could have said that, instead of quoting bible verses about how the wicked deserve to have violence descend on their heads.
posted by dersins at 1:45 PM on April 1, 2016


It's another cost that will mostly borne by regular people in ways that are incredibly difficult for them to uncover.

Nonsense. The cost of the tax to regular retail investors is trivial. The cost to Wall Street's heavy traders is large. Wall Street is strongly opposed to a financial transaction tax because it comes out of their pockets. They would hate to see trading volume and associated fees cut in half.
posted by JackFlash at 1:51 PM on April 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Fair enough. I actually think the imprecatory psalms are an interesting set of responses to institutionalized oppression that deserve closer reading than they usually get, but... even in a 4000+ comment thread that's pretty derailish. :)
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:51 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


But it might make for a pretty interesting post in its own right...
posted by dersins at 1:55 PM on April 1, 2016


And holy shit-- 4000+ comments and we're still 7 months out from e-day.
posted by dersins at 1:57 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


More than 4000, now, actually, making it one of the ten longest Metafiler threads ever.

Just wait for the thread when Trump is elected God-Emperor of the Known Galaxy.
posted by dis_integration at 1:59 PM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Oh, like when the majority of the nation didn't want war in Iraq so we didn't go to war in Iraq"

Wait, are you arguing we should fight for unpopular issues or are you arguing that the majority of the nation did not want to go to war in Iraq in 2003?


I was responding to the assertion I have seen several times in this thread that Sanders or Clinton will be able to do some things because of a majority popular sentiment. As was pointed out elsewhere in the thread there's a number of sentiments that the majority of folks hold when you ask about them, independent of a reductive conservative/liberal axis. And yet...

And yes, I am arguing that the majority of the nation did not want to go to war in 2003. You can subvert that if you did similarly limited Y/N polls, but consistently the administration pushed forward past methods that the population wanted to try before invasion.
posted by phearlez at 2:02 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


But that thread will just be an unending series of comments saying "Praise Trump", repeatedly typed in from dead but still-moving fingers, long past the death of all the Metafilter servers.
posted by frimble at 2:03 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


But it might make for a pretty interesting post in its own right...

It's in my mental queue, right below an FPP on Health Care Systems of the World and right above all the mundane things I'm procrastinating on in meatspace
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:05 PM on April 1, 2016


Actually, the article I shared earlier deserves its own comment. The whole article is excellent, and I've highlighted the ones that stood out to me.
The state has lost control: tech firms now run western politics - Evgeny Morozov

...
Today, however, there’s a major change. While the financial industry has historically been key to “buying time” and staving off the populist rebellion, in the future that role will be assigned to the technology industry, with a minor role played by the global advertising markets – the very magic wand that allows so many digital services to be offered for free, in exchange for our data.
...
Besides, the slogans of the 1970s that were meant to bolster the democratic pillar of the compromise between capital and labour, from economic and industrial democracy to codetermination, look quaint in an era where workers of the “gig economy” cannot even unionise, let along participate in some broader management of the enterprise.
...
I don't agree completely with the article, but it raises many salient points.
posted by kyp at 2:22 PM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wait, so mefi is agreed now that lobbying and bundling is the same thing as some dude giving a hundred dollars to a political campaign?


What the hell, I guess campaign finance reform wasn't needed after all
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:11 PM on April 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


It’s ironic that we complain about voter suppression and shortened voting times and then we have so many caucuses. The caucuses are the least democratic political operation in America. They cater to the people who have a lot of time on their hands, and what’s interesting is Sanders is the nominee of the caucuses and Hillary is the nominee of the primaries.

I am disappointed by the voters who say, ''OK I’m just going to show you how angry I am!'' And I’m particularly unimpressed with people who sat out the Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014 and then are angry at Democrats because we haven’t been able to produce public policies they like. They contributed to the public policy problems and now they are blaming other people for their own failure to vote, and then it’s like, ''Oh look at this terrible system,'' but it was their voting behavior that brought it about.
Barney Frank Is Not Impressed by Bernie Sanders
posted by y2karl at 3:24 PM on April 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


So it seems like you’re saying Bernie’s voters have a slightly unrealistic sense about the political process. And that this is driven—

I didn’t say slightly.

OK.
Oh, Barney. Never change!
posted by Justinian at 3:29 PM on April 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Madeline Albright Mk2.
posted by Artw at 3:37 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, that was already posted upthread. I generally like Barney. He certainly speaks his mind.
posted by futz at 3:38 PM on April 1, 2016


tivalasvegas and zarq, thanks for an excellent, in depth discussion of health care reform. Just want to add one point from a wide angle lens.

I don't believe in American exceptionalism in any form, but the country is very different in practical terms, especially in health care. The US system basically traded universal health care for a half-assed promise of employer health coverage that business is increasingly reneging on. It's obviously unsustainable and never worked well except when unions were at their peak of power.

BUT - it's been baked in for 75 years, and lots of systems and expectations and forms of medical care are built up around it. It's like a big old outdated hospital building with bad wiring and utilities, not enough outlets, huge wifi blindspots, rooms of the wrong size, and persistent MRSA infections.

That said, tearing down and rebuilding the entire hospital is a non-trivial job that will cause a lot of disruption. Entire medical careers are built around the current system. I believe that Bernie Sanders is just ignoring this and making facile comparisons to European countries that set up their systems in the rubble of WW2, when massive change was much easier.
posted by msalt at 3:40 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Re: Bernie Sanders and anger when facing individual voters

I've read several times that he does not do well at, and avoids, retail politics of the sort where Hillary was confronted by the protester. Since he is known for having a fairly short fuse, this may be by design.

Even in his more controlled speeches from the lectern, check out this video (at around 0:40) for example. He was not especially gracious when BLM interrupted him either. And in neither case was anyone literally in his face.

Ironically, given his attacks on Hillary, what he is really great at is giving speeches to large crowds of people.
posted by msalt at 3:44 PM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm really not convinced there was a "good" reaction to the BLM thing available.
posted by Artw at 3:52 PM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


True story: When someone first told me Bernie Sanders was running for president I thought they said Barney Frank. I still haven't quite got over the disappointment.
posted by mmoncur at 3:54 PM on April 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm really not convinced there was a "good" reaction to the BLM thing available.

I'm not a fan of staged, videotaped confrontations in general, whether it's the Greenpeace Lady, BLM, or Breitbart and Bill O'Reilly who do the same thing as part of their schticks. Ditto the Facebook DMer. It was fresh when Michael Moore did it in 1989 (Roger and Me), but even then it got old quickly.

I think people who pull these stunts overestimate public sympathy for their tactics. Someone has to agree with you 100% or they're prone to sympathize with the person ambushed.

In the Hillary clip for example, I suspect supporters for each candidate were reinforced in their preference, and independents probably split at best.
posted by msalt at 5:32 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




PHOENIX - Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign might challenge the results of Arizona's presidential primary

The Sanders campaign is questioning the huge number of provisional ballots that were tossed out by the county recorder's office.

"We believe there's a possibility the delegate count could change if some of these provisional ballots are counted," Sautter told reporters after the County Board meeting.

The county recorder's office reported that 20,008 provisional ballots were declared invalid out of more than 24,000 cast. Virtually all of the invalid provisional ballots were cast by voters who were ineligible because their party registration was "independent." Independents were not allowed to vote in the primary.

Some voters have said the county's records for their registration was wrong. Secretary of State Michele Reagan, the state's top elections official, said at a hearing Monday that the party registration for one of her staffers was listed incorrectly.
posted by futz at 7:30 PM on April 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hillary Clinton’s Support Among Nonwhite Voters Has Collapsed

Really? We're relying on Seth Abramson's analysis of PPP's numbers? Grasping at straws doesn't even begin.
posted by dersins at 7:36 PM on April 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Hillary Clinton’s Support Among Nonwhite Voters Has Collapsed
On February 27th, Hillary Clinton led Bernie Sanders among African-American voters by 52 points.

By March 26th, she led Sanders among African-Americans by just nine points.

And today, Public Policy Polling, a widely respected polling organization, released a poll showing that Sanders leads Clinton among African-American voters in Wisconsin by 11 points.
So, this is the opening of the article and it seems to me the writer, Seth Abramson, is kind of using some sleight of hand. The first two numbers are from a national Reuters poll, while the last poll is (as mentioned) a PPP poll only in the state of Wisconsin. So not only a different polling company, but also a difference in the area being polled. In addition, the writer fails to report the latest numbers in the Reuters poll, which on April 1 has Clinton leading again by 23%.

And later the author points to Sanders' victories in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii:
Now that Clinton’s lead among black voters nationwide is fluctuating between the high single-digits and the mid-teens, it appears the sort of voting margins among nonwhite voters that made Clinton’s present delegate lead possible are never coming back.

Case-in-point: last week, Sanders beat Clinton in three of the ten most diverse states in America (Hawaii, Washington, and Alaska) by 39.8 points, 45.6 points, and 61.5 points, respectively.
He seems to be switching from "black" to "nonwhite" to "diverse" without acknowledging that these terms mean very different things. African-Americans make up less than 5% of the population in each of those states. Even if we were to take at face value his claim that Clinton's support among African-Americans has cratered, it doesn't necessarily mean Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders, Latinos, Alaskan Natives, Native Americans, and other minorities would suddenly follow suit. And I want to mention that Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington are caucus states, which Sanders usually does well in.
posted by FJT at 7:42 PM on April 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Wow 4000+! Will there be a new thread soon?

Upthread I promised a Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) link dump, but this will do for now. Anyone interested in looking deeper into the topic can find abundant links from here, and Sydneysiders might want to attend if there are still seats left.

Public Forum: Will the TPP Survive the US and Australian Elections?
April 20 - 12.30 - 2.00
Macquarie Room, NSW Parliament House, Macquarie St., Sydney.
The TPP trade deal between Australia, the US and 10 other Pacific Rim countries is being reviewed by a Parliamentary committee before Parliament votes on the implementing legislation. But the early recall of Parliament and possible election on July 2 will interrupt this process.

Community organisations representing over two million Australians, and over 300,000 individuals have urged MPs to vote against the TPP because it increases corporate rights at the expense of peoples’ rights. Public opposition in the US is so strong that all presidential candidates are opposed, and it will not even be considered by the US Congress until after the November election. This forum will discuss the TPP in the context of the Australian and US elections, and why Australian politicians should not rush to endorse the TPP legislation.
posted by valetta at 8:13 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


while the last poll is (as mentioned) a PPP poll only in the state of Wisconsin.

He also doesn't mention that the PPP poll is one of three Wisconsin polls this week; the other two (Fox and Marquette) have Clinton leading Sanders by 15 and 35 points among nonwhite voters. That's quite a spread. We'll see who's got it right.
posted by escabeche at 8:33 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


If I were a mod I would prefer to let this thing run until it automatically closes and then have another open up, rather than try to manage multiple threads of Bernie and Clinton supporters sniping at each other.

(I say that as a sniper)
posted by Anonymous at 8:49 PM on April 1, 2016


Oh, more tea leaf reading of demographics from a tracking poll.
posted by Justinian at 8:52 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


(I say that as a sniper)

Oh that is JUST the sort of thing a Clinton and/or Sanders supporter would say!
posted by happyroach at 9:29 PM on April 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton, under fire for oil and gas donations, once hit Obama for same reason

But during her 2008 presidential campaign against Obama, Clinton ran a 30-second ad hitting the then senator for the same thing..
"You've seen the ad," says a narrator before cutting to a separate ad of Obama saying, "I don't take one from oil companies."
"No candidate does. It has been against the law for 100 years," says the narrator. "But Barack Obama accepted $200,000 from executives and employees of oil companies. Every gallon of gas takes over three bucks from your pocket. But Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that puts $6 billion in the pocket of big oil."
The narrator adds, "Hillary voted against it. She will make oil companies pay to crate the new jobs in clean energy America needs."
Clinton concludes the ad by saying, "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message."

...Both Clinton and Obama accepted money from executives and employees of oil companies during the 2008 campaign, according to Center for Responsive Politics. Obama accepted $222,309 and Clinton accepted $309,363, according to the watchdog.

posted by futz at 10:24 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


So, in 2006 a House Representative by the name of Bernie Sanders received a $10,000 boost from Hillary Clinton's PAC while making a first time Senate run. And according to this Internet Archive capture of HillPAC in December of 2006 he won the seat. Good for him for getting the support he needed to win.

But, in 2016 Sanders is running for president and attacks Clinton's fundraising a few days ago with George Clooney, similar fundraising that would help downticket candidates like 2006 Bernie Sanders. And when 2016 Sanders was asked whether he'll pitch in for down-ballot races, he waffles and says "We'll see".

So, #WhichBernie is it?
posted by FJT at 12:46 AM on April 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Just how exactly has Clinton raised all of this money for the DNC? I don't suppose it's via the same basic mechanisms that allow millions from the oil and gas industries to appear in pro-Clinton SuperPACs—which in that case we're supposed to ignore and not worry our little heads about—is it? Perhaps that's in fact exactly what Bernie meant by "Secretary Clinton has access to kinds of money that we don't. That we're not even interested in."

Interestingly, next after the Hillary Victory Fund that your Clooney link talks about, which has raised $26 million in 2016 alone, the two funds next down the list for 2016 are "Boehner for Speaker Cmte" and "McCarthy Victory Fund 2014".

According to the note at the top of that Open Secrets page,
Joint fundraising committees can be created by two or more candidates, PACs or party committees to share the costs of fundraising, and split the proceeds. Participants in the JFC can't take any more money from a donor than they could if the money was given directly, but this vehicle allows a donor to write one very large check. Before the 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC decision, the checks donors wrote to JFCs were subject to overall aggregate limits. Following the decision, those limits were removed, opening up the possibility of JFCs that involve many candidates or committees, which can then solicit one donor for a mega-contribution.
If you click on the Hillary Victory Fund, it's generous selfless ol' Hillary herself who is listed as the fund's top beneficiary, so far getting nearly twice what the second beneficiary "DNC Services Corp" received, about twenty-two times as much as the highest state party recipient, and nearly seventy times as much as the fund has given to the median state party recipient so far. (And when I say "state party recipient" I'm referring to the entire state party, not a specific candidate.)

So if half of the money from a JFC formed between one candidate and the DNC goes to that candidate, or some large portion of it, and counts toward donation limits, it makes perfect sense to me that you'd only want managed, orchestrated donors who are spreading their total aggregate donation to Clinton around to put money into it. You need to have accountants controlling it all who will prevent the limits being breached. I wonder if they even need to spend all of the money in 2016 anyways, or if this money can just sit there and then be disbursed in future years to give Clinton leverage, or even go towards a future Clinton campaign and be tapped up to maximum limits every year.

If indeed someone has changed their attitude towards fundraising and how to source money since 2006, I wouldn't worry about it being Bernie. If you are terrified, as that opinion piece in the Washington Post says the Democratic elite are, that the firehose of unlimited money that can be sprayed around politics might dry up, that's what this is all about.

BTW Open Secrets has no trouble whatsoever acknowledging the things Clinton and company call a lie—their latest blog post, Clinton’s fossil fuel friends: lobbyist bundlers brought in big money (but there’s an asterisk). Seems that everyone, including the people who specialize in tracking the movement of money in politics, are "lying".
posted by XMLicious at 5:24 AM on April 2, 2016


Just how exactly has Clinton raised all of this money for the DNC? I don't suppose it's via the same basic mechanisms that allow millions from the oil and gas industries to appear in pro-Clinton SuperPACs—which in that case we're supposed to ignore and not worry our little heads about—is it?
I dunno, maybe through events like this, from 2010:
Twelve Democratic Senators spent last weekend in Miami Beach raising money from top lobbyists for oil, drug, and other corporate interests that they often decry, according to a guest list for the event obtained by POLITICO.

The guest list for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's "winter retreat" at the Ritz Carlton South Beach Resort doesn't include the price tag for attendance, but the maximum contribution to the committee, typical for such events, is $30,000.
Clearly those twelve senators are hopelessly corrupt and cannot be trusted! Let's name and shame them:
There, to participate in "informal conversations" and other meetings Saturday, were senators including DSCC Chairman Robert Menendez; Michigan's Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow; Bob Casey of Pennsylvania; Claire McCaskill of Missouri; freshmen Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Begich of Alaska; and even left-leaning Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Look, this is an ugly aspect of American politics, but it's also not one that is avoidable if you want to be a successful candidate at the national level right now. Bernie denounces it, and he says that it disqualifies Hillary, but he's definitely participated in it himself. You could argue that this is a sign that he is not a rigid ideologue who will be too inflexible to get things done, or you could argue that it's hypocrisy and dishonesty that speaks to character. But if you think that you can't vote for someone who participates in expensive corporate fundraisers, then your candidate is Jill Stein, not Bernie Sanders.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:46 AM on April 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


Trump inspires Fugazi to reunite.

I remember when Bush was elected people were saying that it might suck but maybe the punk will be good again. I don't think that really happened, but with Trump, the possibilities are endless.

I got april fooled on april 2nd.
posted by dis_integration at 5:59 AM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Public financing of elections, problem solved. Next.
posted by mikelieman at 5:59 AM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Public financing of elections, problem solved. Next.
Your candidate claims that his opponent is hopelessly corrupt because she attends fundraisers with people who represent corporate interests. He routinely attends the same fundraisers, and he takes money from the groups for which the fundraisers raise money. This is not something you can brush off, I don't think.

Here, but the way, is a New York Times blog post from last July about Bernie taking a break from campaigning to attend a DSCC fundraiser in Martha's Vineyard, at which the minimum contribution was $37,000.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:07 AM on April 2, 2016 [10 favorites]




Local newspaper report about the 2012 DSCC Martha's Vineyard retreat. Guess who was there? 2008 article called The Donors: An Inside Look at the Elite Circle of Top Givers about Democratic attempts to reward top donors for giving money to senatorial campaigns:
During the convention, Legacy Circle members received a special lunch at a restaurant at the J.W. Marriott Tuesday in Denver.

About 30 donors and senators attended, including Sens. Robert Menendez (NJ), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Jim Webb (Va.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Bernie Sanders (Vt.)....
We're not talking about something that Sanders did once or twice and then thought better of. He routinely attends big-money Democratic fundraisers, and then he turns around and says that his opponent isn't qualified because she attends the same fundraisers. If this is disqualifying, he is disqualified. You might argue that the hypocrisy is an additional mark against him, that it says something about his character and his integrity.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:53 AM on April 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


> Just how exactly has Clinton raised all of this money for the DNC?

I dunno, maybe through events like this, from 2010...
The Miami beach fundraiser guest list, to which a DSCC spokesman didn't immediately have a reaction, was a standard, corporate-heavy event that both parties have long used for high-dollar fundraising. Other guests included lobbyists for two Indian tribes, for McDonalds, for beer and wine sellers, Ford, and a small handful of advocacy groups, including the gay group Human Rights Campaign.
Oops! Looks like your attempt to make up tiny pre-Citizens-United donations from a supposedly energy-industry-only event to Sanders and equate that to Clinton dredging in millions of dollars totally failed. It can be confirmed through Open Secrets that Human Rights Campaign was a regular donor to Bernie.

Right now, 2016, is emphatically not the point in history to be muddying the waters between tiny donations (especially imaginary ones) under a functioning previous regime that at least in some way limited money in politics and enormous multi-million dollar political funds that are only at the beginning of their evolutionary process as a tool for controlling society.

At the moment I'm wondering if it would be perfectly legal for the money in the Hillary Victory Fund to be dynastically handed down from Hillary to her daughter, were Chelsea to choose a career in politics.

But I would certainly agree that the meeting you point to is the sort of venue where in 2016 floods of unlimited money will get channeled into politics, entirely legally and in the open. Don't pretend this is just business as usual and something we have no choice but to accede to, or that the millions and millions raked in this way won't impair a politician from changing the system.

Clinton supporters know this and that's exactly why all sorts of legerdemain is being used to make it sound as though her funding from fossil-fuel interests is a mere single-digit multiple of what can theoretically be attributed to Sanders, or to portray raising an enormous multi-million-dollar fund she mostly spends on herself as an act of altruism.

You don't have to vote for Jill Stein to know that's turd polishing and that it's complete bullshit to cast her and her political network as substantially equivalent to Sanders and his network when it comes to influence from the fossil fuel industry or entanglements that would prevent any real reform effort of the post-Citizens-United campaign funding world, even if she really wanted to do that.

tl;dr Maybe Bernie would be successful in opposing those things as President or maybe he wouldn't, but at least his hands aren't in golden handcuffs to prevent him from even making the attempt.
posted by XMLicious at 6:55 AM on April 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Oops! Looks like your attempt to make up tiny pre-Citizens-United donations from a supposedly energy-industry-only event to Sanders and equate that to Clinton dredging in millions of dollars totally failed. It can be confirmed through Open Secrets that Human Rights Campaign was a regular donor to Bernie.
That isn't even a coherent thought. I literally can't parse it and have no idea what point you're trying to make!

Look: this isn't complicated. One of Bernie's key talking points is that Hillary represents corporate interests because she attends events where donors pay a lot of money to get access to elected officials. Bernie routinely attends the same events, which can be proven by looking at news stories from before he was running for presidents, in which reporters covering those events provide a list of people in attendance.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:03 AM on April 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh—all you want to do there is prove that Bernie attends meetings? Attending meetings is the "ugly aspect of American politics" you're talking about, and Clinton receiving millions of dollars from industries both for campaigns and private-sector activities is a separate issue?

Then sure, Bernie attends meetings.
posted by XMLicious at 7:08 AM on April 2, 2016


Ok, let me get this straight. When Hillary attends fundraising events at which corporate donors pay $30,000 a year to get access to elected officials, it's "golden handcuffs." When Bernie does that, it's "meetings."

That's some fascinating logic you've got going on there!
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:10 AM on April 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


When Hillary takes gobs of money for speeches that aren't public, that's "golden handcuffs". You seem to be trying to make the statement that both candidates fundraising records are equivalent, when they're simply not. Only one candidate receives the vast vast vast majority of his campaign funding from small dollar donors, and only one candidate has received a very large sum of money from superpacs.
posted by localhuman at 7:17 AM on April 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


I really can't wait for the primaries to be over so Dems can be on the same side again.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:18 AM on April 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


Ok, let me get this straight. When Hillary attends fundraising events at which corporate donors pay $30,000 a year to get access to elected officials, it's "golden handcuffs." When Bernie does that, it's "meetings."

Assuming you were actually even trying to answer the question you quoted, you are saying that she built this $26 million dollar fund which she controls and disburses primarily to herself and which is actually named after her, by attending general DNC fundraising events? And the DNC decided to put the funds raised at these events where many different politicians attended, into a JFC of which only Clinton was a member?

You realize that if the supposed aid to down-ballot races was the consequence of the type of DNC events which both Clinton and Sanders attend, there would be no reason to say that Hillary engages in this but Bernie doesn't, right? The narrative the Clinton campaign wants you to advance is that this is something only Clinton does, and that Bernie is a mean old man who hates Democrats, rather than someone who has constantly supported the Democratic party even when he was an independent as you are demonstrating.
posted by XMLicious at 7:25 AM on April 2, 2016


Bernie specifically blasted Clinton for attending a big-ticket fundraising event hosted by George Clooney. He didn't mention that he attends such events regularly, often attended by people who are a lot more unsavory than George Clooney. He attends lavish annual donor retreats in Miami Beach and Martha's Vineyard. He attends lunches for the "Legacy Circle" of donors who max out their contributions to the DSCC. His supporters say that such events are a form of corruption when Hillary participates in them but harmless "meetings" when Bernie does. That makes no sense. It is not logical.

Fundraising is a shitty fact of life in modern American politics. Small donations are great, but we haven't figured out a way to finance comprehensive campaigns using just small donations. They depend on a cult of personality, and you can't rely on that to fund every race, because there are not candidates for every race who can engender a cult of personality. (And I'm not sure we want to select candidates based on their ability to create a cult of personality, because that's how you get Trump). Bernie understands that, which is why he participates in fundraising, even though I'm sure he finds it distasteful. Most politicians find it distasteful, but they do it and don't turn around and accuse other politicians of being uniquely corrupt because they do it too.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:35 AM on April 2, 2016 [15 favorites]




How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties

Is this true?:
By November 2015, 22 of the state parties linked to the Hillary Victory Fund have received $938,500 from the fund and sent the same amount back to the DNC. There is no limit to amounts of money transferred between state and national parties and PACS or Funds.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:04 AM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


As I pointed out above, the Clooney fundraiser I think you're talking about wasn't a DNC thing, it was a fundraiser for the Hillary Victory Fund, her JFC—it says this in the quote in the text of this comment which FJT linked to while trying to draw a parallel to a $10,000 donation from HILLPAC, which as far as I can see was just a normal PAC similar to Bernie's Leadership PAC which he has talked about during some of the debates and town halls.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but I think in 2016 a JFC fund is a completely different thing, among other aspects is a method of directing nearly unlimited amounts of money into politics thanks to Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC, and is not at all equivalent to the general party events from earlier in the century running under much tighter funding rules which you are trying to relate them to.

From New Hampshire Public Radio for example:
In the past, donors to JFCs were bound by campaign-finance regulations that capped aggregate contributions. In 2014, for instance, donors could give to as many candidates and committees that they wanted to, but their contributions could not exceed $123,200 total.

In April 2014, in McCutcheon v. FEC, a majority of Supreme Court justices decided those aggregate limits were unconstitutional.

Donors in 2016 must still abide by to limits to individual candidates ($2700 per election), national party committees ($33,400), state parties ($10,000) and traditional PACs ($5,000).

But they no longer have to stop when their total contributions reach $123,200. Theoretically, a donor could contribute to a JFC set up to benefit every Republican or Democratic candidate for federal office in a given year, along with every party committee, which would add up to about $3.5 million.

...

Citizen's United opened the door for non-candidate and non-party political committees to collect unlimited amounts in contributions. But, in keeping with previous decisions, the court kept in place limits on the amount an individual can give to political candidates and parties.

In McCutcheon, the justices ruled it was unconstitutional to limit the total amount any individual could give throughout an election cycle. Reform advocates say the decision will bring back the "soft money" that was extinguished by the McCain-Feingold reforms of the early 2000s. Without those aggregate limits, they argue, political parties, which are largely the domain of elected officials, can now could raise and spend unlimited amounts.
The Elite Circle events you mention from past years were a few dozen top donors meeting with all of those politicians at once at an event for the entire party, and the donors were people or couples who had donated at least ~$28,000 five years in a row if I'm understanding properly, but Hillary Victory Fund is under a single politician's control, the Clooney event was its third event ever, and it already contains $26 million as of whenever the last time was that data made it through to Open Secrets.
posted by XMLicious at 8:41 AM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


And I'm not certain about this but I get the feeling from cursory googlings that they mean an individual can donate $3.5 million in a single year on the theory that it might be split among all candidates everywhere during the same year, but then it doesn't actually have to be spent that way as long as the other limits aren't exceeded.
posted by XMLicious at 8:52 AM on April 2, 2016


e is prove that Bernie attends meetings? Attending meetings is the "ugly aspect of American politics" you're talking about,

Come on.
posted by zutalors! at 9:27 AM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]




Best tweet ever.



Donald J. Trump Verified account
‏@realDonaldTrump

Wisconsin has suffered a great loss of jobs and trade, but if I win, all of the bad things happening in the U.S. will be rapidly reversed!

posted by Trochanter at 9:59 AM on April 2, 2016


Wisconsin has suffered a great loss of jobs and trade, but if I win, all of the bad things happening in the U.S. will be rapidly reversed!

I'm pretty sure this is how he'll accomplish that.
posted by dis_integration at 10:12 AM on April 2, 2016


Sanders campaign responds to Clinton camp on the NY Debate battle. Says debating on NCAA finals night is "ludicrous"

The game plan with debates has always been to schedule them to minimize viewership by young people. The DNC is bad at and for democracy.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:12 AM on April 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


J K Galbraith ‏@J_K_Galbraith 25s25 seconds ago

“Wealth, in even the most improbable cases, manages to convey the aspect of intelligence.”
posted by Trochanter at 10:30 AM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Come on.

I laid out specific details about Clinton giving herself millions of dollars from the fundraiser under discussion, seventy times as much as most of the other recipients, and ArbitraryAndCapricious quoted from my comment and started talking about Sanders attending Democratic Party events. I was trying to make some sort of sense of what the hell the point was once AAC said they weren't even implying that Sanders got any money at all out of attending said events, (asserting, in fact, that such a suggestion was not even a coherent thought) and claimed that one of Sander's "key talking points" is criticizing her for attending the same sort of events.

In case this is all because things I've said have been missed, to reiterate Clinton has given herself four million dollars from the fund the George Clooney fundraiser was contributing to, seventy times as much as she gave to most of the aforementioned 33 state parties from that fund, and has not given any money directly to down-ticket candidates from that fund.
posted by XMLicious at 10:34 AM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders campaign responds to Clinton camp on the NY Debate battle. Says debating on NCAA finals night is "ludicrous"

This is paranoid fantasy. Episodes of garbage shows like Big Bang Theory often draw similar ratings to the NCAA finals. Yes basketball is higher in the demo, but not that much higher. Can the Sanders campaign please find, like, a single thing to not whine about?
posted by dersins at 10:44 AM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I laid out specific details about Clinton giving herself millions of dollars from the fundraiser under discussion, seventy times as much as most of the other recipients, and ArbitraryAndCapricious quoted from my comment and started talking about Sanders attending Democratic Party events.
He didn't "attend Democratic Party events." As late as last July, he attended fundraisers at which people who paid tens of thousands of dollars were rewarded with access to candidates and elected officials. These events benefited the Democratic fundraising groups from which Bernie receives money. He did this because you have to do it to be a viable candidate. It can't be avoided, much as I think Bernie would prefer not to do it. But he also pretends to be above it all and condemns other people for doing it, which makes him a hypocrite and makes his criticisms of his opponent ring a little hollow.

You can pretend that Hillary's fundraiser was something totally different because the event she attended was raising money for her campaign, the DSCC, and state Democratic parties, while Bernie's events just raise money for the DSCC, which then funds his Senate campaigns. I am sure that some of Bernie's supporters will agree that this is totally, totally, totally different. But I think that's a little preposterous.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:04 AM on April 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Can the Sanders campaign please find, like, a single thing to not whine about?

He's actually right, though. Our primary in New York is on April 19. The Syracuse teams are in the Final 4 for the first time in I don't know how many decades.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:11 AM on April 2, 2016


Syracuse men last made the Final Four in 2013.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:22 AM on April 2, 2016 [4 favorites]



The Syracuse teams are in the Final 4 for the first time in I don't know how many decades.


Looks like about 0.3 decades. Syracuse was in the final four in 2013.
posted by msalt at 11:23 AM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think that rounds down to zero decades.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 11:28 AM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


OK, my bad. My point is, Sanders isn't wrong to turn down her offer.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:30 AM on April 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Heh, yeah the point stands, it's a horrible time to debate. It's not just young people who will be watching the Final Four. Following the tournament is popular across demographics and everywhere in the country.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:33 AM on April 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton offered times on April 4th, 14th, and 15th. Sanders complained about the 4th because of the finals. He doesn't want to do the 15th because it would be on Good Morning America. No explanation for why April 14th doesn't work.

Fact checking the Clinton-Sanders spat over Big Oil contributions

Summary:
  • Clinton has received 0.15% of her campaign contributions from the "Oil and Gas Industry" compared to Sanders's 0.04%.
  • Greenpeace claims Clinton has received $4.5 million total from lobbyists tied to the oil and gas industry. This still only amounts to 2% of her total campaign contributions.
  • However, fossil fuels are just one of these lobbyists' clients--they have many, and there's no way to tell who provided the money. For example, in the case of one lobbyist it could also be from airlines, media, and insurance.
    “When a lobbyist represents a number of different kinds of clients, it’s a little disingenuous to say that the money was bundled by ‘lobbyists for the oil and gas industry’ without a big caveat,” said Viveca Novak, editorial and communications director at the Center for Responsive Politics.
  • The Center for Responsible Politics does not list oil and gas as one of the top industries funding Clinton. It is considered the gold standard for this sort of thing, except by the Sanders campaign which prefers Greenpeace's method.
  • The Sanders campaign has been unable to tie any of Clinton's legislative actions to the contributions it says she's received, and has not been providing the whole story with respect to her voting record.
    Gunnels pointed to votes she cast to expand offshore drilling and to thwart proposed restrictions on such drilling — and also actions Clinton took as secretary to approve a tar sands pipeline and help energy companies expand offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. There’s no evidence any of these actions were tied to campaign contributions. The link between such contributions and the State Department actions is especially weak because that reflects Obama administration policy, not just Clinton. (Indeed, pipeline approval authority had been delegated to a deputy secretary of state.) Important context is also missing. The offshore-drilling vote cited by Sanders also banned oil and gas leasing within 125 miles off the cost of Florida. Moreover, Clinton voted against the 2005 energy bill, the energy industry’s top priority at the time.
posted by Anonymous at 11:49 AM on April 2, 2016


It's not just young people who will be watching the Final Four. Following the tournament is popular across demographics and everywhere in the country.

Uhh ... yeah frankly that seams like kind of a weak excuse and I'm a sportswriter. There's always something popular on TV.

If she proposed it during the Oscars or the Super Bowl, you might have a point. This is more like scheduling it during the Golden Globes or the Country Music Awards show.
posted by msalt at 11:51 AM on April 2, 2016


Right, focusing on the 4th is a red herring. The Clinton camp offered three different times and Sanders rejected them all because reasons. They'd rather complain about debates than actually debate.
posted by Justinian at 11:54 AM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


as we all know, millenials only watch television programming when it's first broadcast at its scheduled time
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:55 AM on April 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Why doesn't Bernie like Good Morning America?
posted by msalt at 11:55 AM on April 2, 2016


Uhh ... yeah frankly that seams like kind of a weak excuse and I'm a sportswriter. There's always something popular on TV.

And yet the Republicans somehow didn't run into nearly the problems with avoiding them the Democrats did this year. It is a mystery.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:15 PM on April 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


You can pretend that Hillary's fundraiser was something totally different because the event she attended was raising money for her campaign, the DSCC, and state Democratic parties, while Bernie's events just raise money for the DSCC, which then funds his Senate campaigns. I am sure that some of Bernie's supporters will agree that this is totally, totally, totally different. But I think that's a little preposterous.

I don't see any contributions to Bernie from the DSCC in 2006 or 2012, nor from the DCCC during the 21st century years available at Open Secrets when he ran for the House.

But even if he had gotten a few thousand dollars, or maybe the six bucks Barney Frank got in 2004, I hope you don't hurt yourself crossing your eyes hard enough for that to look indistinguishable from Clinton giving herself four million dollars from private fundraising and holding on to twenty million more she might take at her own discretion, plus however much is raised as the fund goes forward to have more than three fundraising events.

It's like saying that the industrial food practices of a McDonald's franchisee must remain beyond the criticism of someone who makes muffins for bake sales from time to time, because the bake sale donations make them a hypocrite somehow.
posted by XMLicious at 12:17 PM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why doesn't Bernie like Good Morning America?

Wait, are we talking about a debate on Good Morning America? Seriously?
posted by Drinky Die at 12:18 PM on April 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't see any contributions to Bernie from the DSCC in 2006 or 2012
You missed 2006:
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) $37,300
They also bought him ads and gave money directly to the Vermont Democratic Party to support him.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:29 PM on April 2, 2016


He doesn't want to do the 15th because it would be on Good Morning America.

A weekday morning. I can see where someone would perceive that as trying to hide the debate.
posted by Trochanter at 12:31 PM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sanders is going after the young vote in New York and Wisconsin right now. Young people don't watch Good Morning America.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:32 PM on April 2, 2016


And the night of the 14th?
posted by Justinian at 12:41 PM on April 2, 2016


both doer ‏@selfesteemworks 1m1 minute ago

@LarryWebsite also suggesting a debate happen the night before taxes are due seems elitist as hell too
posted by Trochanter at 12:44 PM on April 2, 2016


I feel like that's kinda grasping at straws.
posted by Justinian at 12:45 PM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Honestly is a debate really going to push the needle either way? I mean, the conventional wisdom is that the underdog stands to benefit from extra exposure (and potential "game-changer" moments or whatever), but given that this primary race has been hotly contested and covered for nearly six months now, I don't think A Debate is as big a deal at this stage.

And I think Sen. Sanders might be better off using his time to do more mass rallies and such -- that seems to be what gets his supporters fired up more than another debate where everyone goes around saying the things they said in the other x number of debates.

On purely idealistic grounds, I'm all for more debates and whatever. I just don't see how it's a great use of either campaign's time/resources at this point. Are there really a bunch of Democratic primary voters out there who are like, "um, I'm definitely voting but not sure who to vote for yet -- watching the candidates argue with each other / desperately try to draw huge distinctions over minor policy issues for an hour and a half would help me with the decision...."?
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:48 PM on April 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


What people are missing about these DSCC fundraisers is not that Bernie got the money (though he did), but that he was one of the organizers. You know, the people that invited the Wall Street fat cats (and other lobbyists). The ones who owe those lobbyists a favor in return, by his own description. He does at least one of this big-ticket fundraisers every year.
"A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present. 'At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don't recall him ever giving a speech attacking us,' the donor said.
... Among the DSCC's top contributors that year [that Bernie got about $200,000]: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000."
Public financing of elections, problem solved. Next.

Public financing exists right now. Bernie opted out to get more money.
"... his presidential campaign, just as Clinton's and Barack Obama's in 2008 and 2012, has chosen to bypass that system, allowing Sanders to raise millions of dollars more."
Look, I would love to see major campaign finance reform (which will require overturning a Supreme Court decision). So would Hillary. In the meantime, getting to that point requires raising money and Bernie does it too. That's why his moralistic insinuations about Hillary being "corrupt" and "bought and sold" are such hypocritical bullshit.
posted by msalt at 12:52 PM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I feel like that's kinda grasping at straws.

And yet, there you are. The night of the finals, a weekday morning, and Tax day eve. Those were the offers.

Honestly is a debate really going to push the needle either way?

To me, the thing is that, as has been true from the very beginning of this whole thing, when people see Bernie, they like Bernie. The climb has been inexorable. It's not the back and forth, it's the exposure. And the Clinton camp has chosen and offered dates to minimize that.

To HRC supporters, I'd ask, why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they be tactical in their choices?
posted by Trochanter at 12:59 PM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Losing candidates always want more debates because they have nothing else to lose and might benefit from more free exposure and a possible gaffe by the opponent. Winning candidates have nothing to gain from more debates and much to lose if they make a mistake.

Each candidate tries to maximize their own chance of winning and their opponent's chances of losing. Complaining about the winning candidate because they are reluctant to cooperate in the losing candidate's preferred strategy is rather childish.
posted by JackFlash at 1:01 PM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


And yet hillary demanded the same from barak.
posted by futz at 1:03 PM on April 2, 2016


that's it! i'm voting for burnie!
posted by y2karl at 1:06 PM on April 2, 2016


Got one!
posted by Trochanter at 1:08 PM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm curious. I'm a total last-minute tax-doer, because I'm a bit of a walking disaster in general, but even I usually manage to get them done the weekend before. (I swear I'm going to do them tomorrow. I would do them today but I have homework for the class I'm taking due tonight.) Most people I know do theirs right after the new year, because they're banking on their refund. How many people actually do their taxes on the night of the 14th? Are they really enough people for it to be a big issue?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:09 PM on April 2, 2016


And the night of the 14th?

Can we back up for a second here? Are you guys suggesting Bernie was lying about wanting a debate and he is now ducking her?
posted by Drinky Die at 1:11 PM on April 2, 2016


Isn't there lineups at the post office and such?
posted by Trochanter at 1:11 PM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


And yet hillary demanded the same from barak.

Of course. Because she was losing. Losers always demand more debates.
posted by JackFlash at 1:18 PM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's been a while since I've filed my taxes by mail, but I have actually been one of those people at the Post Office after hours on the 15th. They're open late to allow for last-minute filers, but I don't think I've ever had to wait in a long line.

I actually think that a better reason for Bernie to avoid it would be that there's always a lot of stupid tax discussion on the news on tax day, and it might make people focus on the fact that he's in favor of more taxation. I'm also in favor of more taxation, but I may not feel that way on tax day. (I'm pretty sure that I'm getting a refund this year, which feels like free money even though it's not, but actually doing my taxes makes me hate taxes in particular and also the world in general.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:19 PM on April 2, 2016


Having filed on the final tax night, there's always someone of a crowd at midnight but yes, there's no waiting. It's more people rushing up at 11:50pm, and kind of a party atmosphere.

Serious procrastinators of course take the automatic extension until August 15th, and you have the same situation then. These days a lot of people file online of course -- I think servers jamming up before deadlines is actually more of a problem than lines at the post office.

Pro Tip: buy your postage at the automated kiosk at the post office any time before midnight, and you can drop it in the mailbox even after they close because the postage label is date stamped.

Of course if you planned ahead that well, you probably wouldn't be there at midnight on the 15th.
posted by msalt at 1:32 PM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can we back up for a second here? Are you guys suggesting Bernie was lying about wanting a debate and he is now ducking her?

Lying? I'm suggesting he's being a politician. "Clinton won't debate me!" is a good rallying cry for him. Probably better than the results of a debate.
posted by Justinian at 1:37 PM on April 2, 2016


Bernie agreed to have the debate on GMA, then reneged. It's crappy for him to make all this noise about Clinton refusing to debate him and then turn down all these options.
posted by Anonymous at 1:39 PM on April 2, 2016


I actually really love the idea of a Good Morning America debate if it's in addition to, not a substitute for, an evening debate. I know that there's probably not a ton of overlap between the Metafilter audience and the GMA audience, but I think you'd catch a lot of people who don't typically tune in for evening debates. And I suspect it would help Bernie, for what it's worth.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:40 PM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


And yet the Republicans somehow didn't run into nearly the problems with avoiding them the Democrats did this year. It is a mystery.

I know, right? It's almost as if they--and I can't fucking believe I'm about to say this about any batch of humans that includes Donald Trump--it's almost as if they behaved like adults instead of whining toddlers.
posted by dersins at 1:46 PM on April 2, 2016


Tax day is April 18th this year.
posted by dirigibleman at 1:53 PM on April 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Tax day is April 18th this year.

Gee, way to ruin a great Clinton conspiracy with your stupid facts.
posted by JackFlash at 1:57 PM on April 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


So, see you all here on April 14, a pretty innocuous Thursday night?
posted by maudlin at 1:58 PM on April 2, 2016


It's almost as if they--and I can't fucking believe I'm about to say this about any batch of humans that includes Donald Trump--it's almost as if they behaved like adults instead of whining toddlers.

I wouldn't go that far, much as I sorta get you.

Without taking any kind of stance on the relative merits of either apples or oranges, I think it's safe to say that the externalities in play in the D and R primary schedules have been very much apples and oranges; the GOP docket was for several months so large that networks had to carve off half the candidate pool just to keep the stage in the single digits, and from there acceded to the also-rans by throwing second-tier debates that, themselves, still had higher headcounts than the Dem events. You had something on the order of a dozen candidates clamoring for screen time, hoping to get a chance to pull some kind of double-digit share of the attention; it wasn't a question of behaving like civilized adults so much as there being no shortage of collective desire to get faces on TVs that no one candidate, or the party, could hope to subvert.

And even at that, there's been a few weird scheduling powerplays in the mix there, cancellations hinted at and threatened and made good on, etc.

In traditional narratives of GOP solidarity and party-first thinking, the idea that we haven't seen fussing over the debates because of some prevailing maturity in party mechanics could make sense, but (a) both this and 2012's GOP primary candidate/debate dockets have really undercut that historical template and (b) there hasn't even been a lack of fussiness. There's just been a lot more horses involved in the jockeying on that side.
posted by cortex at 2:00 PM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Another point: the NCAA finals are on April 4th, the first of the nights the Clinton campaign proposed. And the game is scheduled for 9:18pm EST, which would seem to allow plenty of time to schedule a debate earlier, certainly for East coast audiences.

Also, 10th ranked Syracuse has to beat 1st ranked North Carolina to even get to the game. Good luck with that.
posted by msalt at 2:06 PM on April 2, 2016


(I sorta wish you hadn't told me about taxes not being due until the 18th.)

The more I think about it, the more I really want there to be a GMA debate. It's easy to lose sight of this, because there's so much vitriol between Clinton and Sanders supporters on the internet, but fundamentally, either Clinton or Sanders is going to be massively better than anyone on the GOP side. And what a GMA debate would do, much more than it would help either candidate in the primaries, would be to help whomever is the eventual Democratic nominee. Because whatever you think about either candidate, their debates have been intelligent and substantive and a very, very stark contrast from the no-longer-metaphorical dick-measuring contests on the other side. I think it would hammer home the differences between the parties to people who maybe don't pay that much attention to politics.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:07 PM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Just one thing. The whole rejecting debate dates and playing games thing is coming from the Clinton camp.

Sanders' people claim they have also offered dates and those too have been rejected.

Sounds to me like they're negotiating.
posted by Trochanter at 2:22 PM on April 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


You missed 2006

So I did... total brain fart, I thought I had, in addition to looking through the list manually, Ctrl-F searched for both "Sanders" and "VT".

The argument that he may have organized Democratic events is a much better one, but although that little list in the CNN article:
Among the DSCC's top contributors that year [that Bernie got about $200,000]: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.
would buy five whole tickets to the first Clooney/HVF event, that's out of total contributions for 2006 of $75,890,564. The top 2006 donation from "Friends of Hillary" alone at $2,000,000 was larger than all of those combined.

Raising money under 2006 rules, for the entire DSCC together, in the same room with those guys, and having it all mixed together in a witches' cauldron, and getting some of it that year because it was one of his campaign years, might not be as bad as directly taking money from the same fellow; but I'd agree that it would not leave his hands entirely clean even if everyone he'd been bringing to the dance then and in preceding years conformed to his ideology and were unions or the Human Rights Campaign or something like that. (And I don't know who his "Friends of" would have been, those are just hypothetical examples.)

However, to achieve stated goals like overturning Citizen's United and putting "the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections", it seems like leveraging the unlimited-money-in-politics mechanisms yourself to throw "joint" fundraising events where a ticket costs the entire year's salary of an entry-level one-percenter, and from which you pocket the majority of the disbursed money and hang on to the remaining ~20 million for future political activities, would be much more of an impairment in achieving these apparently shared goals than would participating in DSCC potlucks or anything else Bernie has done which has come to light so far, at least hypocrisy-wise.

On preview, I agree that the debates have been awesome.
posted by XMLicious at 2:24 PM on April 2, 2016




Just checked fivethirtyeight's NY primary projections, and they have Hillary as 96% likely to win.

That surprised me, because the latest (Quinnipiac) has her lead shrinking to 12% from the 21% (in two earlier Siena polls this year. I'm ignoring an Emerson poll that gave her a massive lead, as an outlier.)

But when I dug into the numbers, it makes sense. Hillary's vote total has stayed remarkably level at 54%. The movement is all undecideds breaking for Bernie. But unless he can pull away her supporters, who know her very well, he could get all of them and still lose by 8%. A closer margin will reduce the number of delegates she gets, but AFAIK Bernie needs a big win in NY to get the nomination, right?
posted by msalt at 2:52 PM on April 2, 2016


Are you guys suggesting Bernie was lying about wanting a debate and he is now ducking her?

Pretty much. "Clinton is afraid to debate me" makes for great soundbites. And the more the Sanders campaign pushes the "Clinton conspiracy" narratives, the more justification they have for a convention flounce.
posted by happyroach at 2:53 PM on April 2, 2016


That isn't happening. Sanders has made no suggestion that he will """flounce""" and his supporters poll as much more willing to vote for Clinton than say, Clinton voters were to vote Obama in 2008. And they ended up voting for Obama almost unanimously. It's weird to accuse Sanders of conspiracy theories and then suggest he is engaging in one.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:09 PM on April 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


msalt, that is pretty common for poll projections. The start out dramatic and tend to tighten up closer to the end (though 12% is still significant). But as you conclude, predictions of success aren't just about how far the candidate has been leading but how consistent that lead has been.
posted by Anonymous at 3:38 PM on April 2, 2016


Bernie doesn't have to say anything. After the level of negative campaigning I've seen over the last few months, it really isn't conceivable that the Sanders campaign would give any support to Clinton in the general.

When the arguments are: "Clinton doesn't support me"; "No person who cares for America supports Clinton"; "Any process that supports Clinton is incredibly corrupt and doesn't reflect the will of the people", then a flounce is inevitable.

So at this point I think we're looking at a disastrous convention, a Trump victory, and a couple decades of recriminations.
posted by happyroach at 3:57 PM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


To expand on happyroach's point, there's a strain I've seen in many (though of course not all) Sanders supporters, that seems similar to what I found in a lot of flouride opponents as well as people on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

The main narrative is the "they" control everything, where "they" is Big Xxxxx for different values of X (Wall Street in Bernie's case, Pharma or Monsanto for flouride haters, Media for conservatives). Your hero never really loses a battle; it was always stolen or rigged or bought off or the result of fraud. There is never any real evidence against your position, because all the tradiitional authorities are corrupted by the money of Big Xxxx.

So scientists, the New York Times, Frontline; none of them are trustworthy. But someone like Joseph Mercola the quack doctor who plays on every fear from aids to microwave ovens, is of course perfectly acceptable and anyone who doesn't like him is, of course, bought off by Big Corn. Big Pharma and Big Medicine. For a politician like Bernie, he and whoever supports him are the only valid sources. Reddit's /r/Politics will eat up any toxic right wing source from Breitbart, to the Blaze, the Horn etc. as long as it slams Hillary or supports Bernie.

This trend really worries me because it seems to be corroding public discourse. If you can't even agree on what constitutes proof, how can anything be resolved? If your opponent is corrupt, how can you imagine compromising with them?
posted by msalt at 4:29 PM on April 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


I hear tell them Sanders folk don't got no reflection
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:58 PM on April 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Are you seeing this Clark County stuff?
posted by Trochanter at 5:10 PM on April 2, 2016


Larry Elections ‏@LarryWebsite 30s30 seconds ago

if y'all need a quick explainer here it is: it looks like a lot of Hillary's credentialed delegates didn't show up to the convention
posted by Trochanter at 5:11 PM on April 2, 2016


Larry Elections ‏@LarryWebsite 25s26 seconds ago

Clark County accounts for 75% of Nevada's population. if you win Clark County, you win Nevada. and Bernie just won Clark County
posted by Trochanter at 5:12 PM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I mean, the debate debate is pure politics. A NY debate is not on the schedule, and it's typical for the underdog to want more debates than the front runner, especially after a state they expect to win, like Bernie expects Wisconsin. it's also typical for the front runner to not want the debates, as it's more opportunity for soundbites that sound wrong, mistakes etc.

I do think the original pre voting debates were hidden from people. I went to a few debate parties on like Saturday and pre holiday nights set up by Sanders supporters, but otherwise I didnt know they were happening.

But the idea that Bernie is asking for the debates because he's the more honest guy and because democracy etc is pretty silly. On the one hand he does deserve more exposure. On the other it's not evil of Hillary to want to deny it.
posted by zutalors! at 5:13 PM on April 2, 2016


msalt, if you're looking to get Sanders supporters to stay home in the general, you're doing a bang-up job.
posted by Lyme Drop at 5:16 PM on April 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


If your opponent is corrupt, how can you imagine compromising with them?

Are Republicans corrupt?
posted by Drinky Die at 5:21 PM on April 2, 2016


anybody who's gonna not vote cause of an internet argument, I mean, man, just, I don't know
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:21 PM on April 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Yeah, I'm sure no one's ever decided not to vote just because they're told that their perspectives aren't welcome in their own party.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 5:32 PM on April 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


This trend really worries me because it seems to be corroding public discourse.

Bad public discourse would include Internet comments like yours that effectively equate the block of American progressive voters with Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists.

It's so bad that I'm even wishing good luck in getting your candidate to win in the general election, because she'll need it, at this rate.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:35 PM on April 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


This is bizarre. I think Bernie just won Nevada because a bunch of Hillary's delegates didn't show up for the Clark County caucus.


Clark County Dems
‏@ClarkDems

2386 final for Clinton. 2964 final delegates for Sanders. Total delegates: 5357 #ccdp2016
posted by Trochanter at 5:38 PM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I am surprised (though maybe I shouldn't be) at the umbrage taken to msalt's comment, given they're clearly taking this from the Reddit Sanders support base. I mean, yeah, that pretty accurately describes the attitudes going on over there, and it spills out into the rest of the Internet because then brigades go out from whatever article is on the front page.
posted by Anonymous at 5:40 PM on April 2, 2016


Also I think it is reflective of a larger cultural problem, as nicely discussed in this article: After the Fact (previously).
posted by Anonymous at 5:43 PM on April 2, 2016


anybody who's gonna not vote cause of an internet argument, I mean, man, just, I don't know

Dismissiveness doesn't help. Seriously, it's a bad tactic.
posted by Lyme Drop at 5:57 PM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


2386 final for Clinton. 2964 final delegates for Sanders. Total delegates: 5357 #ccdp2016

Caucuses are cray. This is pretty ironic because I remember reading some gossip that the Sanders delegates didn't have their shit together and the Clinton delegates were all on top of that.

If the states were winner-take-all it would be a big deal, but ultimately that's a gain of what, 4 or 5 delegates, max?
posted by Anonymous at 5:58 PM on April 2, 2016


I think it's five up five down. I can't find anything out.
posted by Trochanter at 6:01 PM on April 2, 2016


Dismissiveness doesn't help. Seriously, it's a bad tactic.

I'm not doing 'tactics.' I'm honest to god baffled. There is so much more at stake for the wide world out there with this election than any of the words we're typing into our screens
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:06 PM on April 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


I don't think Clinton operatives are posting here
posted by zutalors! at 6:09 PM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am reading reports that Sanders delegates didn't show in other districts--though it's doubtful any other district has such a huge chunk missing. It's messed up because district delegates are explicitly elected for this purpose.

At the same time this just goes back to the question of how democratic caucuses really are. On top of voters having to take hours of their evening off to argue, it depends on 12,000-13,000 people being able to take work off and travel to the election site. Is there debate happening during these district elections? And if not, why can't this be done by computer or mail-in ballot?
posted by Anonymous at 6:10 PM on April 2, 2016


Okay, Las Vegas Sun has it now. Sanders wins most delegates at Clark County convention
posted by Trochanter at 6:11 PM on April 2, 2016


what's the difference between the clark county convention and the nevada caucus? didn't hillary already "win" nevada?
posted by nadawi at 6:20 PM on April 2, 2016


Of the almost 9,000 delegates elected on caucus day in February, 3,825 showed up to the convention at Cashman Center today.[...]The final vote count, after two 10-minute realignment periods, was 2,964 for Sanders and 2,386 for Clinton. [...]In the February caucuses, Clinton had won 4,889 delegates to the county convention, while Sanders had won 4,026.
Holy shit. Only 40% of elected delegates showed. Over 5,000 people, coming from both camps. I know overall turnout is low for caucuses, is that kind of turnout normal at the district level, too?

I dunno, at the point where that many elected representatives aren't coming then I think no-shows are less about delegates not caring and more about the overall system being shitty. Campaign organization becomes about working around that. I also just realized that since that includes Las Vegas, you are telling your delegates they can't work on a Friday or Saturday in Las Vegas.
posted by Anonymous at 6:24 PM on April 2, 2016


Mod note: Enough with the fluoride derail, enough with fighting with other mefites, enough with complaining about moderation in-thread. Talk about THE ELECTION or take it to MeTa.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 6:28 PM on April 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Oh man, and now I'm having flashbacks to the time I unexpectedly wound up as a Hillary delegate to the Texas state Democratic Convention eight years ago. Story time!

Back in Ye Olde Days, we had our precinct caucus on Super Tuesday, the same night as the election. I went, and Obama ended up winning our precinct by a decent amount. I put my name forward to attend the district convention as a Hillary delegate, as did a number of other people. In the weeks leading up to the district convention, the leader of the Obama delegates took it upon herself to email all of the delegates - repeatedly, and in a very overbearing manner - basically telling us to vote for her as the precinct delegate to the state convention and she'd do...something in return, I can't remember what. Represent us all honorably, I guess? Anyway, she was being extremely pushy and unprofessional about it, and eventually the rest of the Hillary delegates emailed each other privately and were like, "What the hell? She can't decide the vote ahead of time, right? What's up with all of this pressure? They've won anyway, so why does she need us to vote for her?"

The morning of the district convention, I rode to the convention with a bunch of the other Hillary delegates. As we were walking in, they said, "Hey, Salieri, we're going to choose our own delegate to vote for, because these high-pressure shenanigans are getting to be annoying. And we'd like to choose you." Because I was in my thirties and I was the youngest of the bunch, so they thought it would be cool to put forward someone outside of the stereotypical Old Broads for Hillary demographic. I shrugged and was like, "Sure, if you'd like to," because in the end it wasn't supposed to make any difference. The Obama delegates outnumbered us, so this was kind of our own protest vote.

Anyway, the convention starts and we break into our precincts. And lo and behold...a big chunk of the Obama delegates who had signed up to attend back at the caucus never showed, whereas all of the Hillary delegates did. In fact, it ended up split exactly fifty-fifty, and we were kinda looking at each other like...is this really happening?

It came down to a tie, and we went to the rules committee to figure out what happened next. It then went to a coin toss, as I remember...and the Hillary delegates won the toss.

The main Obama delegate who had been so overbearing this whole time? PIIIIIISSED as hell. I was kind of getting a bit scared of her, to be honest, because wow did she not take it well at all, and there were challenges and all kind of ugliness. She next tried to get in as an at-large delegate, but I can't remember if that actually happened. So completely unexpectedly, I found myself the precinct delegate to the state convention in Austin, and that was a trip let me tell you.

In the end, Hillary stepped down not long after, and I was sad and voted for Obama anyway, but I also met some awesome people and got a really cool look at some of the political sausage-making and even ended up serving as precinct chair for a few years until I got too busy and gave it to someone else.

The moral of the story is...if you sign up as a delegate, make sure you attend your convention!

(Also, trying to type up these long-ass comments when the lines are going all wonky due to the thread length is a special treat.)
posted by Salieri at 6:29 PM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


On the Clinton side, my bet is that what happened was that all the paid staff moved on to the next state, and they didn't put enough thought into figuring out how to remind/ help people get to the county conventions.

There was actually a whole ton of chaos at some of the Iowa county conventions, too, although I don't think it ultimately changed the final delegate count. I think the moral of this story is that caucuses aren't a good system, although I'm not feeling super upbeat about the prospects for real reform.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:32 PM on April 2, 2016


> The Defense Industry’s Surprising 2016 Favorites: Bernie & Hillary

"Lockheed Martin is a contractor for numerous defense programs, including the troubled F-35 fighter jet, the most expensive weapons system ever built."


The F-35 is still a shockingly expensive disaster.
posted by homunculus at 6:35 PM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


nadawi, here's my understanding of the Nevada system, very simplified:
  1. Caucuses are held. These determine the district delegates that are sent to the district convention. Delegates are roughly chosen in proportion to a candidate's share of the local caucus vote. The local caucus vote is what Clinton won--in the case of Clark County, she won it by 10% so in theory has 10% more district delegates than Sanders.
  2. Elected district delegates go to the district convention to elect state delegates. Using caucus results to determine who won a state assumes that 100% of the district delegates will make it to the district convention.
  3. Elected state delegates go on to the national convention (in Philadelphia) to represent their state for their candidate.
There's stuff with alternates too, and a chunk of state delegates are immediately set aside for the winner of the aggregate caucus votes, no district election required.

But basically if not all your district delegates make it to the district convention, then it doesn't matter how much of the caucus vote you won, that district's state delegates can still go to your opponent. This is what happened in Clark County. Clinton won the caucus, but since not enough of her district delegates were actually at the convention Bernie still won more state delegates in that district. Clark County is the largest district in Nevada, so depending on how the other districts turn out he could end up with more state delegates overall than Clinton.

As has been discussed a few times above, the caucus system is nice in theory but tends to favor the voters who have the flexibility to take time off to caucus or go to the convention.
posted by Anonymous at 6:37 PM on April 2, 2016


Good info, schroedinger.
posted by Trochanter at 6:41 PM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


After the level of negative campaigning I've seen over the last few months, it really isn't conceivable that the Sanders campaign would give any support to Clinton in the general.

The level of negative campaigning this year is significantly less than it was in 2008 from what I can see, and the Clinton camp backed Obama to the hilt in the general with Bill Clinton being one of his most effective surrogates to certain demographics and Hillary Clinton taking one of the most powerful jobs in the country under his administration. Unless you think the Sanders campaign people would be a lot less magnanimous that the Clinton campaign people were?
posted by Justinian at 6:45 PM on April 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ugh, caucuses are such bullshit. They should be destroyed and replaced with something which at least pretends to be democratic.
posted by Justinian at 6:46 PM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Or maybe the Clinton camp can figure out how to show up and claim what they'd already won, just like the rules stipulate.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:48 PM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Really strange.


Gotta say, really dumb too, isn't it? Don't you dot your i's and all? As a campaign?
posted by Trochanter at 6:49 PM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Or maybe the Clinton camp can figure out how to show up and claim what they'd already won, just like the rules stipulate.

My objection to caucuses is independent of who wins how many delegates. Obama rocked the caucuses in 2008 and they were bullshit then too.

Making it hard for people to vote is bad.
posted by Justinian at 6:50 PM on April 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think they weren't expecting the race to still be competitive at this stage, and they've been moving people to the next competitive state really quickly without a good plan in place to finish up stuff in the last state. I think that both sides are kind of making things up as they go along at this point.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:54 PM on April 2, 2016


Can a delegate change their mind after the caucus or are the obligated to vote for the candidate at the district convention? Anyone know? Caucuses are essentially undemocratic imo.
posted by futz at 6:55 PM on April 2, 2016


Or maybe the Clinton camp can figure out how to show up and claim what they'd already won, just like the rules stipulate.

Oh come on now, a large chunk of Sanders delegates didn't show, either. This isn't about candidates, this is about making sure the whole population receives a fair opportunity at representation. Just on the local level, apparently only 80,000 registered Democrats and 75,000 registered Republicans came out to vote in a state with a population of nearly three million. That's 5% turnout. And then on the district level, with people who have presumably been specifically picked for their interest in the role, only 40% make it?

Like I said--this is indicative of a systemic issue.
posted by Anonymous at 6:56 PM on April 2, 2016


Depends on the state, I think. In Iowa, they're not pledged, and they're free to change their minds.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:56 PM on April 2, 2016


thank you so much, schroedinger.

and holy fuck i'm glad i live in an open primary state. it's hard enough convincing people to show up for 15 minutes in a pretty building to vote once.
posted by nadawi at 7:06 PM on April 2, 2016


nadawi, I take it that your home state is not Arizona?
posted by futz at 7:08 PM on April 2, 2016


I missed a step in the caucus process.

After the district delegates elect the state delegates, then the state delegates go to a state convention, and that's where the national delegates get elected to go to Philadelphia.

Also there is apparently a mess where the ostensibly-nonpartisan person in charge of credentialing delegates (essentially picking them) leaked information about Clinton's campaign to the Sanders campaign. The Clinton campaign has argued she's going to pick Sanders-leaning delegates for the state convention and wanted her to step down. This post about it was from this morning, with the decision on it happening today. In the end she's kept her position and will still be picking state delegates.
posted by Anonymous at 7:20 PM on April 2, 2016


Lots of reports from people who say they were at the convention tonight. As of 30 minutes ago people say they are still there and unsure of what is going on.

People have posted in the last 10 minutes that they are still there and that there is some sort of backdoor thing going on. Some have been there since 8am.

Obviously take the above with a grain of salt but many people say that they are still there.
posted by futz at 8:09 PM on April 2, 2016


did I mention that people were still there? :)
posted by futz at 8:11 PM on April 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


In other news, Syracuse was eliminated from the NCAA basketball tournament as expected, 83-66, and TPM reports that the Clinton campaign offered a time for the debate that would end before the game starts anyway.
posted by msalt at 9:44 PM on April 2, 2016


Caucuses are such a PITA. It must disenfranchise so many people, e.g., people with newborns.

Primaries seem to have their own set of problems as well, ala Arizona.

Does anyone know of a compromise system that is in use that has the best of both worlds and less of the worst?
posted by kyp at 10:22 PM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Agreed kyp, it is nutso.

new parents, single parents, any parent who doesn't have flexible child care. Flexible usually means an extra hour or so. Who the hell can plan for a 12 hour caucus? Folks show up assuming at the most it will be a few hours. Parent or not, nobody should have to suffer for democracy. Do they provide breakfast lunch and dinner? If you leave to get food do you risk missing a vote?

disabled people (me!)

elderly

people who work non standard shifts or people who get permission to leave work for an hour to participate. When your hour is up you either leave or lose your job.

Yeah, that is not Democratic or an accurate representation of the will of the people. It is a shitty and decidedly undemocratic system.
posted by futz at 10:53 PM on April 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


The issues in Arizona are less about the structure of primaries and more about the structure of government that allows an official to deny voting rights on a whim. That kind of skullduggery is not limited to election type.
posted by Anonymous at 11:01 PM on April 2, 2016


The issues in Arizona are less about the structure of primaries and more about the structure of government that allows an official to deny voting rights on a whim. That kind of skullduggery is not limited to election type.

I disagree, e.g., the fact that day-of-primary voting happens in smaller batches and in secret allows unsavory individuals to create an innocuous bottleneck.

I acknowledge what you're saying though and this is just my personal interpretation based on what I've read and know. Definitely would be interested if you have stuff to share.
posted by kyp at 11:29 PM on April 2, 2016


I am confused. Primary voting is just, like, voting. Is what you are suggesting that our entire electoral system be scrapped?
posted by dersins at 11:36 PM on April 2, 2016


I am confused. Primary voting is just, like, voting. Is what you are suggesting that our entire electoral system be scrapped?

Let me quote what I said:
Caucuses are such a PITA. It must disenfranchise so many people, e.g., people with newborns.

Primaries seem to have their own set of problems as well, ala Arizona.

Does anyone know of a compromise system that is in use that has the best of both worlds and less of the worst?
When I say primary here I'm referring to the version of primaries we have now (which I think is imperfect), not just "voting".

Also, I did not advocate for it to be scrapped (feel free to point out what gave you that impression). I was asking if anyone knows of a better system.
posted by kyp at 11:55 PM on April 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think the point is that the problems with caucuses are intrinsic to the very concept of a caucus while the problems we are seeing with primaries are things which can be fixed without throwing out the whole idea of voting in a primary.

We can fix primaries. We can't fix a caucus because the whole idea is anti-democratic at its core.
posted by Justinian at 12:12 AM on April 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


oes anyone know of a compromise system that is in use that has the best of both worlds and less of the worst?

Here in Oregon we're definitely trying something different.
1) all elections are vote by mail. You have 2-3 weeks to send in your ballot, or you can drop it off.
2) Now, any time you get a driver's license, you are automatically registered to vote unless you opt out. You can choose a party or not; if not, you get a second chance to pick a party later.

Turnout is much higher, and since the second provision started in January, many thousands of new voters are registered.
posted by msalt at 12:20 AM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yea, early voting definitely helps.

I still think it's important for undecideds to have a chance to talk to another person and discuss their vote. It would be nice if:
  1. Primary voting still happens
  2. Undecideds can go somewhere to talk to other voters on voting day
Justinian, I don't support a caucus-only system and I agree with you.
posted by kyp at 12:33 AM on April 3, 2016


Also there is apparently a mess where the ostensibly-nonpartisan person in charge of credentialing delegates (essentially picking them) leaked information about Clinton's campaign to the Sanders campaign. The Clinton campaign has argued she's going to pick Sanders-leaning delegates for the state convention and wanted her to step down. This post about it was from this morning, with the decision on it happening today. In the end she's kept her position and will still be picking state delegates.

From what I've read, they eventually called the police on her for trespassing (SLYT), and all 4 women on the credentials committee (which also includes 2 Clinton delegates) linked arms and sat on the floor to prevent her removal.

Here are the only news links I could find that reported on what happened at the convention. Please share more if you come across any.
posted by kyp at 2:15 AM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


That US Uncut site is so incredibly biased it's unreadable as "news."
posted by zutalors! at 4:32 AM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


It would be nice if [...] undecideds can go somewhere to talk to other voters on voting day.

We have the internet now... Not just being glib, I think the internet (and this very thread!) really make the "caucusing" part of caucuses redundant.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:53 AM on April 3, 2016


We have the internet now... Not just being glib, I think the internet (and this very thread!) really make the "caucusing" part of caucuses redundant.
Not everyone uses the internet the way that we use the internet. I ran the centralized phone bank for the Democrats in my town in 2016, which used computer dialers, and we had a fair number of volunteers who could barely (or not at all) use a computer.

I guess that I didn't find the caucus that I went to to be at all conducive to convincing undecided voters. It was crowded and noisy and extraordinarily inconvenient to go to, especially for anyone with young children, and I think the only people there were folks who were decided and pretty committed to a particular candidate. Maybe a better thing to do would be to have more party-sponsored events in the lead-up to the primary at which decided voters could pitch their candidates to undecideds. Groups like the League of Women Voters already have candidate forums at which surrogates present the candidates, and maybe we could formalize that process a little bit.

One really unfortunate thing about the way the Iowa caucuses work is that it separates the presidential nominating process from the process for selecting other candidates, and that kind of sucks the air out of the primary for downticket races. There's a really interesting race heating up for the Democratic candidate to challenge Senator Chuck Grassley, and it's not getting a ton of press because we're supposed to be done.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:17 AM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


2014. I ran the phone bank in 2014. Need! More! Coffee!
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:34 AM on April 3, 2016


When I say primary here I'm referring to the version of primaries we have now (which I think is imperfect), not just "voting".

So, the part I'm (still) not getting here is this: the way primaries work is pretty much exactly the same as the way regular old voting-on-election-day works. The problems that happened in Arizona happened largely because the folks in charge of ensuring there were adequate polling places did what we have seen Republicans do in other places: they "accidentally" ensured a paucity of polling places in traditionally Democratic areas. This has nothing to do with the fact that votes were being cast for a primary election rather than for a general election.

So what exactly is it about primaries--specifically primaries--that you find particularly problematic?

Also, I did not advocate for it to be scrapped (feel free to point out what gave you that impression). I was asking if anyone knows of a better system.

This is hairsplitting sophistry of the highest order. Saying, in essence, "I think this system is broken--does anyone know how we can fix it?" absolutely is suggesting that the system as-is should be scrapped. To pretend that's not what you're implying is just disingenuous.
posted by dersins at 7:44 AM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]




Does anyone know of a compromise system that is in use that has the best of both worlds and less of the worst?

I don't see why we can't take that question at face value, dersins. It seems totally reasonable to me.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:55 AM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


"The point is, if LGBT concerns were truly being prioritized by the Clinton campaign and her team really thought they needed to compete for LGBT votes and credibility, that time differential would have been miniscule. Instead, the early Human Rights Campaign endorsement helped stymie that competition."

Speaking of disingenuous. That's a fairly lengthy piece about ways in which the author believes the Human Rights Campaign is problematic. Clinton is mentioned in exactly one section of the piece, but that's your pull quote?

Also, the "time differential" under discussion is the eleven whole hours it took for Clinton to tweet her condemnation of the discriminatory law passed in NC. Something something unreasonable expectations.
posted by dersins at 8:10 AM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I guess that I'm really unclear on what the advantages of caucuses are, unless you see disenfranchising people as a feature, not a bug.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:18 AM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


"I think this system is broken--does anyone know how we can fix it?" absolutely is suggesting that the system as-is should be scrapped.

My house's wifi connection was broken yesterday because I had upgraded my router firwmware to a new version, and it was crapping out for some reason. I fixed it by flashing back to a previous version of the firmware. By your logic, I scrapped my router, whereas I think most people would say that I merely made a small change that fixed the problem. If you're so attached to your argument that you can't appreciate that there's a sliding scale from minor reform to completely scrapping the entire system, well, I don't know what to tell you, but maybe you should take a few plays off and consider that there are shades of gray.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:20 AM on April 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


dersins, it was the only quote that was relevant to this thread. I thought it was interesting.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:23 AM on April 3, 2016


I think "State changes hands due to Convention fuck up" should be a pretty big story...
posted by Trochanter at 8:37 AM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


ArbitraryAndCapricious, a formal pre-voting day pseudo-caucusing system would definitely address some of my concerns about voter education.

So what exactly is it about primaries--specifically primaries--that you find particularly problematic?

You mean specifically American primaries right, and not just the concept of primaries in general?

I pointed out 2 aspects earlier. The most important (to me) is that it lacks a way for undecideds to be able to discuss the ballot with informed voters on the day of voting. Given that some voters still select a candidate solely by their name, I want a system that gives voters a chance to learn more on election day by talking to their fellow voters.

dersins, I still disagree that my comment implied that I wanted to scrap primaries, and I disagree that I was/am disingenuous.
posted by kyp at 8:47 AM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I guess that I'm really unclear on what the advantages of caucuses are, unless you see disenfranchising people as a feature, not a bug.

I went to a caucus exactly once, in 2008, and will never go again. It was awful, even without the long lines and other issues that seem to be common this year. It took hours, there were long arguments over process, and spending that much time with the dedicated party supporters made me realize that while I reliably vote Democratic, I will never identify as such. It was a deliberately unfriendly process to all kinds of people (like anyone who couldn't dedicate all afternoon to the process, just to name one) and felt extremely outdated in an age of mail-in ballots and electronic voting machines.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:53 AM on April 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Actually, I realize it's probably impossible to meta-talk about caucuses/primaries neutrally on this thread, so I'm going to move that to some other thread or off the Blue, and go back to just current election cycle general interest stuff. Thanks for all the responses.
posted by kyp at 9:07 AM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


It was a deliberately unfriendly process to all kinds of people (like anyone who couldn't dedicate all afternoon to the process, just to name one) and felt extremely outdated in an age of mail-in ballots and electronic voting machines.

Plus, the whole lack of a secret ballot thing is just the wee-est bit fucked up on any number of levels.
posted by dersins at 10:43 AM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm in agreement that caucuses as constituted and used today do far more harm than good. But, they don't have to be intrinsically undemocratic. I believe they are modeled on a similar notion to our town meeting day in Vermont. That tradition is oft debated but it isn't clear that it's always less democratic than Australian ballot. It's a format that works well when there are a number of decisions that a small community of people who are generally familiar to each other need to become informed about and act upon. It works well for helping a small town of a few hundred people be reasonably well represented on the mundane decisions such as whether it's worth buying a new snow plow or funding a study on renovating the volunteer fire department. It's horrible when it is scaled up to massed groups simply browbeating each other to support predetermined conclusions.

We have a lot of institutions in this country that just plain worked better for smaller populations. It's time for us to let go of the old ideas that don't work any more.
posted by meinvt at 11:13 AM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Thank you for that meinvt. That was my impression of caucuses: they work well for small, close-knit communities as a way for people to openly discuss the issues that directly affect them. They don't scale up so well, especially not to state-wide side.

I have also heard the argument that they're essentially the only way a third-party or non-establishment candidate can get any traction on the national stage, provided they have a dedicated enough group of supporters. Which I totally believe. The problem is that this comes at the expense of everyone who doesn't have the privilege of going through the caucus process. The two-party system sucks, but I don't believe caucuses are the solution.
posted by Anonymous at 12:25 PM on April 3, 2016


At rallies, Hillary Clinton’s supporters are looking for logic, not passion
To her and others baking in the sun, this was in fact the paradox of being a Clinton supporter at a Clinton rally, the thing that no one seemed to understand. They were excited by her lack of excitability; thrilled by her boring wonkiness; enthusiastic not about the prospect of some dramatic change but about Clinton’s promise of dogged, small-bore pragmatism, a result of decades of government experience they considered a qualification rather than a liability.
This article is not so subtly implying Clinton supporters are all boring nerds. But as a Clinton supporter, I am somehow totally OK with that.
posted by Anonymous at 12:33 PM on April 3, 2016




oh how i long for less biased reporting and fewer clickbait headlines.

hillary's quote, specifically about the oil industry money, as quoted in full at the bottom of the article, “I feel sorry sometimes for the young people who, you know, believe this. They don’t do their own research. And I’m glad that we can now point to reliable independent analysis to say no, it’s just not true.”
posted by nadawi at 12:41 PM on April 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


oh how i long for less biased reporting and fewer clickbait headlines.

I'd settle for fewer of them being posted in Mefi election threads.
posted by zarq at 1:01 PM on April 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


A new election thread is live.
posted by Wordshore at 2:11 PM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yay! Our long national nightmare this thread is over! Long live the new thread.
posted by mmoncur at 2:35 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Aw man. I mean...yay new thread! But I'm sorta sad to see this one finally go.
posted by Salieri at 2:35 PM on April 3, 2016


I'm not!
posted by futz at 3:17 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Last!
posted by msalt at 4:25 PM on April 3, 2016


I know threads and the new thread is the best thread. It's terrific. Everyone agrees.
posted by mochapickle at 4:31 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Mod note: One comment deleted. Ironic insulting comments are still like throwing a lit match in here, please just don't.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:51 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


New threads are popping up and stealing links from established threads like this one. We need to build a wall to keep out the new threads. Make this thread great again!
posted by homunculus at 5:51 PM on April 5, 2016 [18 favorites]


« Older Man Alive! How did I ever get along with five?!   |   Mountains of Books Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments