Crossing the Delaware: five primaries in the US election
April 26, 2016 8:59 AM   Subscribe

With less than 200 days before deciding who will be POTUS #45, five states hold primaries today: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Following the problems with voting in New York, hopefully there won't be so many this week, although location limitations do not bode well. Since the New York primaries, Ted has cut a deal with John but thinks the convention will be contested, people are eyeing Bernie's email address book, Donald buys a ticket to Seattle but gets his historical election facts wrong while encouraging an academic discipline, John corners the astronaut demographic, Hillary rejects a non-endorsement, Joe is focusing on the Senate, and the new first rule of Abe Club is that there is no more Abe Club.

Recent news on voter ID laws, suppression and other shenanigans from Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin, while John is frank on D.C. voting rights. Delegate count trackers are available at 538, Associated Press and Bloomberg.

After today, the trail turns to Indiana on May 3rd for both Democratic and Republican primaries, then Guam on May 7th for a Democratic caucus. Candidates have been doing the rounds in the former; as elsewhere, there's plenty of other people to vote for on the same day.

Meanwhile, POTUS #39 is given a hat, POTUS #41 is given a lure and POTUS #44 encounters a miniature Obi-Wan Kenobi. But, if you are fed up of US politics or elections , then here's some alternatives.

Election threadopedia: most recent eight
April 19th - Twirling towards freedom: the US election - New York primaries.
April 11th - It's still only April: the US election drags ever onwards.
April 3rd - After this it's the midterms: April's US election primaries.
March 15th - Election 2016: Rubio and Kasich's last stand.
March 5th - Six candidates, eight days, eleven states: Election 2016 continues.
March 1st - Super Tuesday.
February 18th - Nevada and South Carolina.
February 9th - New Hampshire.

Meta: the most recent election MetaTalk thread. Also, discussions in other MetaTalks about election threads and commenting on the dangers of violence to POC. And finally, before repeating your comment, think of your moderator.
posted by Wordshore (1341 comments total) 37 users marked this as a favorite
 


PA is also having pretty interesting Senate and attorney general primaries. Obama has endorsed in those, which I don't think he has done very often (McGinty and Shapiro, respectively).
posted by Chrysostom at 9:04 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


After this week, there's only one question every remaining candidate must address:

"Can you or can you not fit an entire pancake in your mouth? What about a belgian waffle?"
posted by selfnoise at 9:05 AM on April 26, 2016 [12 favorites]


I voted in rural MD this morning, and everything went very smoothly. No lines, but plenty of people-- I think lines were not a problem because there are paper ballots this year, which means a lot more voting stations than when they were using the touchscreens. You fill out your ballot, then the poll worker instructs you on how to feed it into the reader/scanner-- she told me she wasn't allowed to handle it herself, which I thought was an interesting touch.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 9:09 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump had some facts wrong??
posted by MtDewd at 9:09 AM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Selfnoise, I wish you moderated debates.
posted by agregoli at 9:09 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump had some facts wrong??

Imagine that. Though from my experience, one thing in common between Trump and Reagan's campaigns -- the prospect of either ignoramus as President made / makes me feel ill.
posted by aught at 9:19 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thanks Wordshore for another well constructed election thread!
posted by localhuman at 9:19 AM on April 26, 2016 [15 favorites]


a fiendish thingy, I had the same experience in suburban Maryland.

In other news, my Congressional district, a Frankensteined nightmare of gerrymandering, made the NPR airwaves yesterday with this interesting story about businessman David Trone, who is spending $12.4 million of his own money in an attempt to win the House seat soon to be vacated by Chris Van Hollen, who is running for Barbara Mikulski's Senate seat.

[Full disclosure: I did not vote for Trone, but I did vote for Van Hollen. My pick for the 8th District is State Senator Jamie Raskin.]
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 9:21 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


I will be voting in Maryland this afternoon. (My polling place is practically across the street from my office, so yay for convenience.)

I researched the candidates for US Senate. Except for the two professional politicians (Donna Edwards and Chris van Hollen, both Maryland Representatives in the House now running for Senate), they are all crackpots. Varying flavors of crackpot, to be sure—but, hoo boy.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 9:24 AM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


Rural Pennsylvania: By 10 a.m., over 200 votes had already been cast at my polling station, and the parking lot was packed.
posted by MonkeyToes at 9:25 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


I thought it was amusing that Cruz agreed to not campaign in Oregon to make way for Kasich, followed by Kasich failing to submit a bio/statement/platform for the voter's guide.
posted by bassooner at 9:26 AM on April 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


Question about primaries - who runs them? Are they done by the state or by the parties themselves (I assume that caucuses are the responsibility of the parties)? IOW, if there are voting "irregularities" and people unable to register and long lines and such, is this something you blame on the party or on the state?
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 9:28 AM on April 26, 2016


Voted in PA shortly after polls opened this morning. There were a few people there, no line, everything pretty much business as usual except fewer people standing outside handing out voting information. It was pouring rain so that might be why. Or just the early hour.

I did slightly side-eye the person setting up my voting machine who stage-whispered at me, "You're a Democrat, right?" to figure out which set-up button to push. I am, and I'm aware it's public record, and I'm fine with everyone knowing it. (Hell, I'll tell you who I voted for, no problem.) But if she was actually trying to protect my privacy then whispering did no good since she did it loud enough at least three other people could have heard it, and if she doesn't think it needs privacy, then just ask the question out loud.

Anyway. I'm happy to have voted. I'm sad I didn't get a sticker. I'm still mildly confused that over here in Pittsburgh I got to vote about whether Philadelphia traffic court should be put out of its misery.
posted by Stacey at 9:28 AM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Speaking of voter ID laws, suppression and other shenanigans, I correctly presumed the judge that just upheld North Carolina's voter suppression laws was a Republican appointee (Bush the Lesser, in fact), when NPR studiously avoided mentioning it this morning.
posted by Gelatin at 9:28 AM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


Cruz and Kasich are like the keystone cops.

It's interesting that even the Koch's are starting to go "You know maybe 4-8 years of Hillary wouldn't be that bad".
posted by vuron at 9:29 AM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


I voted for Edwards because her rhetoric is more leftist and we need more women of color in the Senate, but Van Hollen has a very good reputation. I wouldn't be heartbroken if he were to win.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:29 AM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


I had a pleasant voting experience in central Baltimore. I arrived first, a few minutes before 7, and a line was already starting to form by the time I left, but it didn't look terrible. It was more gated by having only two people checking in. Theoretically, scanned ballots are not limited by the number of voting stations, as one can fill them out anywhere in the polling center as long as one feels sufficiently private (for instance, I have filled them out at a table with my folder hiding my votes).
posted by ubiquity at 9:29 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]




I saw some stuff about an advertisement (?) from the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania made to look like a ballot that omitted Sanders from the choices. Anyone know more about this? Is it just conspiracy mongering from Sanders supporters, or is there actually something like that in the wild, or what?
posted by sotonohito at 9:35 AM on April 26, 2016


It's interesting that even the Koch's are starting to go "You know maybe 4-8 years of Hillary wouldn't be that bad". posted by vuron at 12:29 PM on April 26

Interesting. Hadn't heard that until now
posted by glaucon at 9:35 AM on April 26, 2016


My wife's water broke at 3am this morning, and we're currently in the labor and delivery ward, where she is getting some light sleep thanks to the medical miracle of the epidural. We live in Maryland, so today is our primary election day.

Anyway, I'm super thankful to live in a state that not only protects voting rights, but works hard to get voters to the polls. We voted early last week!
posted by duffell at 9:36 AM on April 26, 2016 [62 favorites]


They moved my polling place this year, for some reason. (Center/North Baltimore) Only a handful of people ahead of me, but that's normal this time of day.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:39 AM on April 26, 2016


Voted in RI this morning after figuring out where my new polling place was (my regular one was not opened). Lines out the door and cars packing the narrow street were pretty discouraging, but I only ended up waiting around 25 minutes to vote in the end.

One nice touch of convenience: although RI assigns you to the party whose ballot you voted on, they also provide disaffiliation forms right after you deposit your ballot, so you can get back to your unaffiliated state within 60 days or so.
posted by grubby at 9:39 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


I saw some stuff about an advertisement (?) from the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania made to look like a ballot that omitted Sanders from the choices. Anyone know more about this? Is it just conspiracy mongering from Sanders supporters, or is there actually something like that in the wild, or what?

These things have been in the wild since forever. The local party sends out "sample ballots" with their endorsed candidates. Bog-standard stuff.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:40 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Congratulations, duffell!

Here in Indianapolis, I plan to early vote this Saturday, and I'm mildly amused that while it won't be decisive -- I expect that after today Hillary Clinton will have a virtual lock on the nomination -- the Indiana primary will at least garner some attention.
posted by Gelatin at 9:40 AM on April 26, 2016


Just another month and change until I get to vote. Yay ridiculously drawn out to the point of absurdity primaries!
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:41 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ah. Since Texas has never had a primary that mattered I suppose I never noticed.
posted by sotonohito at 9:45 AM on April 26, 2016


Stacey: "I did slightly side-eye the person setting up my voting machine who stage-whispered at me, "You're a Democrat, right?""

I was just flatly asked, "Which party?" so they could tally me on the appropriate sheet, and then get the right voting module or whatever. No secrecy at all.

I'm still mildly confused that over here in Pittsburgh I got to vote about whether Philadelphia traffic court should be put out of its misery.

It's already been de facto terminated, but it's specifically mentioned as a thing in Article V, Section 1 of the PA state constitution, so there needs to be an actual constitutional amendment to get rid of it. The legislature has already done its part, now they need voter approval.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:48 AM on April 26, 2016


I had a dentist's appointment this morning and so couldn't vote (in Rhode Island) before work, so I have to do it tonight.

It's in a new location, of course, but it's close to home, so I am going to get there. The only question is, as an Unaffiliated voter, which ballot to grab? I have never voted strategically before, so I have some thinking to do this afternoon.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:49 AM on April 26, 2016


Ted has cut a deal with John
Under the agreement Mr Kasich will not campaign in Indiana, a key state that votes on May 3, where Mr Cruz is running in a close second place.

In return Mr Cruz will not campaign in Oregon and New Mexico, where Mr Kasich has a better chance.
I feel really sorry for at least one New Mexican, because they'll have to update their bumper sticker again, which (currently) reads:

I'M WITH BEN TED!
CARSON AMERICA

Now they'll have to edit their exciting black and white bumper sticker yet again, and it's not even time for our primaries yet. Imagine their annoyance when it comes time to really vote for a president.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:50 AM on April 26, 2016


Just another month and change until I get to vote. Yay ridiculously drawn out to the point of absurdity primaries!

On the one hand, the California primary will matter!

On the other, it's f*$ California and I'm looking at being one of five million Dem primary voters. Sigh.
posted by psoas at 9:51 AM on April 26, 2016


The Post has some good coverage of the Edwards - Van Hollen race, for those unfamiliar.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 9:52 AM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Still very disappointed that Sanders refused to endorse Fetterman in the PA Senate race. Senate Democrats reportedly warned him off getting involved, and he all-too-readily obliged. IMO getting a solid coalition of people like Fetterman in the Senate would do more for Sanders' ostensible agenda than electing Sanders president.
posted by xthlc at 9:53 AM on April 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


Meanwhile, in Baltimore *sigh*
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:53 AM on April 26, 2016




if there are voting "irregularities" and people unable to register and long lines and such, is this something you blame on the party or on the state?

It's a local issue, right? In NY each county has a Board of Elections. Last i heard, the brooklyn board of elections was suspended without pay for the issues there.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:55 AM on April 26, 2016


Congratulations duffel and please remember that Boris is a great name, and not just for girls!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:55 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


I feel really sorry for at least one New Mexican, because they'll have to update their bumper sticker again

The only Ben Carson stickers/posters I've seen in the wild were on the door of one of the apartments at my grandmother's assisted living community. And that door was completely covered with them. I'll be heading down there again in a couple weeks for Mother's Day and now I'm curious to see how/if it's changed...
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:56 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Question about primaries - who runs them? Are they done by the state or by the parties themselves (I assume that caucuses are the responsibility of the parties)? IOW, if there are voting "irregularities" and people unable to register and long lines and such, is this something you blame on the party or on the state?

State and local governments run the primaries, parties run the caucuses. This National Constitution Center article has a good rundown on primary election law.
posted by zamboni at 9:56 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Baltimore is holding the mayoral primary today in which Deray McKesson is running (though, based on the polls, he's unlikely to win).
posted by melissasaurus at 9:59 AM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Whether or not you support Bernie, this seems encouraging in terms of taking grassroots momentum and doing something with it, and I wish them all the best. No matter who's in the White House, Congress is going to be key to making things happen and/or making things NOT happen.
posted by Foosnark at 10:00 AM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's DeRay Mckesson (even my iPad wants to "correct" it)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:01 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ted has cut a deal with John

Don't worry, the "deal" is already falling apart.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:02 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is like the story about the frog and the scorpion, only the scorpion starts stinging the living fuck out of the frog before they even leave the riverbank
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:05 AM on April 26, 2016 [41 favorites]


Baltimore is holding the mayoral primary today in which Deray McKesson is running (though, based on the polls, he's unlikely to win).

I voted for him anyway, because sometimes you just gotta. Still hoping for (and expecting) a Pugh victory, though. If Dixon wins, well, we get what we deserve.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:06 AM on April 26, 2016


Voted at 8:00 this morning in Pittsburgh and it was pretty quiet. No lines. Still no stickers though. I never get a sticker.
posted by octothorpe at 10:06 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


I continue to think of Trump and Cruz as two venomous snakes in a bag. Kasich is a non issue but if anyone ever looks at him closely there is a lot to dislike, from his egregious sexism and war on Planned Parenthood to his overweening, obnoxious egotism.
posted by bearwife at 10:08 AM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Don't worry, the "deal" is already falling apart.

It always struck me as weird that Kasich would forego campaigning in Indiana, where he would seem to have a natural constituency (he's the governor of neighboring Ohio, pretends to be moderate but pushes the same Republican economic fairy tales, and at least seems more competent than our current Republican governor, Mike Pence).
posted by Gelatin at 10:09 AM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


A number of big Bernie Sanders supporters groups were temporarily taken down from Facebook last night, in coincidental timing for the primaries.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 10:11 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


A number of big Bernie Sanders supporters groups were temporarily taken down from Facebook last night

I gather that some Clinton supporters flooded the pages with porn. Speaking as a Clinton supporter, for shame. I hope they are discovered and face consequences.
posted by bearwife at 10:20 AM on April 26, 2016 [13 favorites]


At least some of the posts came from a group called Bros4Hillary, to give an idea of the brain trust behind this stunt.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:23 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


I gather that some Clinton supporters flooded the pages with porn. Speaking as a Clinton supporter, for shame. I hope they are discovered and face consequences.

Facebook is reporting (sorry, can't find the link) that the Sanders thing was a database error that has been fixed, and the porn thing is not true.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 10:23 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ah, "Bros4Hillary" is saying that it was the act of a rogue ex-member. Link
Last night, a former member by the name of Casey Champagne decided to engage in harassing behavior toward Facebook groups of Bernie Sanders and posted about it in the B4H Facebook group. As stated above, this was not promoted or supported by the leadership of B4H, nor were we immediately aware of this conduct. We removed the offending posts and member as soon as possible. While our leadership team of administrators tries to catch every questionable post and comment, with over 7,000 members and on a 24-hour posting cycle, some fall through the cracks. We rely on members to “flag and report” harmful, offensive, or trolling behavior, and apologize to the groups that were affected. This member acted on his own authority, is not a part of our leadership team, and does not represent our ideals or our opinions.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 10:26 AM on April 26, 2016


I think the Cruz-Kaisich agreement is going to be the thing that pushes the nomination to Trump. It seems to line up with the things that motivate Trump voters: victimhood, entitlement and contempt for insiders.
posted by humanfont at 10:28 AM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]




NOTE! Half of the polling locations in RI are closed during the primaries. Please check out https://sos.ri.gov/vic/ to see where you need to go to vote.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:29 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


If the Internet voted we'd be near the end of Ron Paul's second term.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:30 AM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


"This is like the story about the frog and the scorpion..."

Also, they're both scorpions.
posted by Cookiebastard at 10:32 AM on April 26, 2016 [17 favorites]


this seems encouraging in terms of taking grassroots momentum and doing something with it, and I wish them all the best.

I appreciate the sentiment here, but wow, that is some mighty fine sky-pie.

I hope that they are able to keep the enthusiasm behind Bernie's campaign and channel it into midterm elections, but I hope they turn out to be practical enough to winnow their "replace every member of congress" message down to "targeted funding in primaries where the electorate is most friendly to our policies, and where a progressive candidate could actually be elected." The Tea Party's electoral success was built on decades of conservative Gerrymandering accomplished through success in state-level elections, after all. I don't imagine a progressive wave washing over congress until some of that can be undone.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 10:33 AM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


***hello from Pennsylvania****
posted by angrycat at 10:35 AM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Used to be a minivan with a Carson sticker in my neighborhood but haven't seen it in a while; is it that they removed the sticker or just haven't been driving when I have? I hope they removed it.

Not seeing a lot of Ted stickers, the occasional Trump sticker, a few Bernies. I think all the Clinton folks are laying low and waiting on events, except for the lady a few streets down who has a Clinton yard sign (and good for her). We'll get one too when we know the official winner.

When we first moved in the older lady across the street had a conservative yard sign for a local election, but she appears to have moved out (I hope she didn't die? but possibly.) and so now it's just us and the guy on the corner with SECEDE on the back of his truck.

Gonna be a fun year.
posted by emjaybee at 10:42 AM on April 26, 2016


Even in Indiana, emerging as the most important state, the Cruz-Kasich pact appeared something less than decisive. While Mr. Kasich’s campaign canceled his public appearances in the state, the governor was still slated to visit Indianapolis on Tuesday for a fund-raising event at the Columbia Club.

god damn i want to see a Catan game with these dudes so bad
posted by Greg Nog at 10:42 AM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


I hope it was just one disaffected Clinton supporter. Here's the story I saw on thehill.com. I really hope s/he faces consequences, along with anyone else involved.
posted by bearwife at 10:43 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I've seen very few yard signs in the Pgh suburbs. I will admit that "Choose Cruz" strikes me as a pretty good slogan.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:45 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


My dad bought some bumper stickers that say "Loose with Cruz". I couldn't figure out if it was just a bad slogan or bad spelling or what.
posted by peeedro at 10:49 AM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


god damn i want to see a Catan game with these dudes so bad

I don't want to know what they have wood for.
posted by Gelatin at 10:51 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maybe, just maybe, tonight will finally get us to the end game of the Democratic nomination.

And then we can finally put our focus on the slow-motion car crash slash second rate Game Of Thrones ripoff that is the GOP nomination.
posted by dw at 10:52 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


god damn i want to see a Catan game with these dudes so bad

Someone do a Downfall parody where Cruz finds out what Kasich has been up to in Indiana.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:52 AM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


My dad bought some bumper stickers that say "Loose with Cruz". I count't figure out if it was just a bad slogan or bad spelling or what.

"You Cruz You Lose"
posted by Sangermaine at 10:53 AM on April 26, 2016 [16 favorites]


My dad bought some bumper stickers that say "Loose with Cruz". I count't figure out if it was just a bad slogan or bad spelling or what.

It should be either "Lose" or "Loosen" (loosen what?). So probably misspelled.

Unless it's "Get Loose with Cruz" which is something I don't want to think about.

If they were going for jokey spellings, should have been "Luz with Cruz" or even "Looz with Cruz."

/so many missed opportunities.
posted by emjaybee at 10:53 AM on April 26, 2016


Here in PA I've seen my share of Bernie stickers, lots of Cruz signs, some Trump signs, very few Hillary signs and one lonely Kasich sign flapping in the breeze.

I just drove my dad over to vote at his polling place, and am about to go over to mine and do the same. Can't let the wrong lizard get in.
posted by delfin at 10:57 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


"You Cruz You Lose"

so many missed opportunities.

Cruzin' to Defeat
Boos for Cruz
Ex-Cruz-iatingly Awful
Crush the Cruz
If it's Cruz, Trump Sues
Youze Crazy to Vote Cruz
If It's Cruz I'll Take Cyanide -- Peter King

I'll show myself out now . . .
posted by bearwife at 10:57 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I've been seeing people post ballots online, very strange new phenomenon.
posted by zutalors! at 10:57 AM on April 26, 2016


For the fall election I'm debating which bumper sticker I want to buy off of eBay and put on my car. Maybe Dean for America, maybe McGovern if I can find the rare McGovern/Eagleton variety, maybe Thompson for Sheriff.
posted by delfin at 10:58 AM on April 26, 2016


[Couple of comments deleted; it's a weird legal area to offer a recording of yourself filling out your ballot, maybe better not to do that here.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:00 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, don't post ballot shots/video. It's a secret ballot because they don't want people to be bribed/coerced into voting a particular way.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:01 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Boos for Cruz

They're not booing, they're... ah, never mind.
posted by Etrigan at 11:01 AM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's Just Basic, Don't Vote Kasich
posted by Sangermaine at 11:02 AM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


#NeverKasich
posted by zutalors! at 11:02 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


They're not booing, they're... ah, never mind.

Look, Cruz likes sonorous chanting in dead languages at his rallies, it reminds him of home.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:03 AM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


CARL DIGGLER CALLS IT: Unlike Cowardly Nate Silver, I’ll Predict Tonight’s Big Winners
CAFE's Chief Insider Beltway Hack offers his Super Tuesday V predictions -- using gut, personal experience & conventional wisdom
Going into Super Tuesday V: The Establishment Strikes Back, my prediction record for this year’s primaries stands at a towering 87%. Meanwhile, calculator coward Nate Silver, who was too afraid to forecast half the races, has correctly predicted just 41 of the 75 (you don’t get credit for questions you leave blank, Natey) — a flunking 55%.

But while Election Deserter Nate cuts and runs yet again (he didn’t even try to forecast the all-important Delaware primary), I’ll be improving my record by calling all 10 of today’s big races!

The bottom line: Trump is going to make a clean sweep of all five states today, while Hillary is poised to win all but one. Which one will it be? Let’s go to the map!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:04 AM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


I still want a "Robert Terwilliger For Mayor" sticker.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:04 AM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


I wonder if anyone would notice if you passed out "TRiUMPh of the Will" banners at a Trump rally.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:05 AM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


Cruzin' for a Bruisin'
posted by J.K. Seazer at 11:07 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is where I make sure you've all read Jeb! The Musical (Jeb4Ham) right?
posted by zachlipton at 11:07 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie has floated Elizabeth Warren as a potential VP

CNN Intereview (autoplay video)
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 11:11 AM on April 26, 2016


Has Elizabeth Warren floated even the remote possibility of being interested in the job of VP?
posted by duffell at 11:13 AM on April 26, 2016 [18 favorites]


downtohisturtles: "I still want a "Robert Terwilliger For Mayor" sticker."

He's a cold-hearted Republican that'll cut your taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!
posted by Chrysostom at 11:17 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]




Boos for Cruz

They're not booing, they're... ah, never mind.


I was saying Croo-urnz.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:18 AM on April 26, 2016 [15 favorites]


She hasn't, but it's noteworthy that she hasn't tipped her hand either way, to the great consternation of Bernie fans that wanted her to endorse him.

The big problem is if she wins her Senate seat will flip to the GOP, at least temporarily. Given the Democrats have a real chance at getting the Senate back, it may not make tactical sense.
posted by dw at 11:19 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Damn, did Nate Silver murder Carl Diggler's pet or something? Why the harsh tone?
posted by sallybrown at 11:21 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Carl Diggler is performance art: Reply All.
posted by maudlin at 11:25 AM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


VP would be a waste of a job for Elizabeth Warren. She has much more of a pulpit where she is. She would also be a wasted pick for Bernie Sanders. The one demographic he doesn't need more engagement with is Northeastern progressives.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 11:25 AM on April 26, 2016 [24 favorites]


Damn, did Nate Silver murder Carl Diggler's pet or something? Why the harsh tone?

The Media's Most Accurate Political Pundit is a Joke
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:26 AM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Carl Diggler is a Poe's Law Turing machine.
posted by Etrigan at 11:27 AM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


You fill out your ballot, then the poll worker instructs you on how to feed it into the reader/scanner-- she told me she wasn't allowed to handle it herself, which I thought was an interesting touch.

Better than other approaches. When I was working the polls in VA in 2012 there was this scheme where the voter was to put the paper ballot into a folder such that only part of it - without vote information - stuck out. We then had to maneuver that wee bit of overhanging paper into the scanner so it could pull it in, then hold onto the folder as it slid out... but not too tight or you'd hose it all up!

As you can imagine, getting people to put paper in the folders correctly was not any easier than getting them to feed it into the scanner. So you got all that "no, turn it that way... no, other way" crap AND you got to worry you'd cause a PC LOAD LETTER WHAT THE FUCK#@$#%$^%&* incident as you fed it in. Or you'd drop the folder and expose the vote and have to fill out the form for "assisting" a vote.

If people who designed the process had to actually work the process they'd have a setup with ballots small enough to feed in no matter how they're turned, then optically process it to straighten it out. The $2 iOS app I use to scan documents manages to pull it off and I am 99% certain the libraries to do it are open source BSD licensed. But that requires taking the process seriously and not running your procurement as "my brother-in-law's company needs some work."
posted by phearlez at 11:35 AM on April 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


Jane Sanders just said that Bernie will not be releasing any more tax returns until Clinton releases her Wall Street speech transcripts.

Not a smart move, imo. They could have released them this morning and lost the story in the brouhaha of today's voting coverage, which is going to be negative for Bernie anyway.

What could be so bad in those things? Even if there's some shady stuff, the dollar amounts aren't going to be Romney-sized...
posted by sallybrown at 11:35 AM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


Well, given the Bernie campaign is about to need >60% of the final set of delegates to win after today, the tax returns and speeches are about to become very irrelevant.
posted by dw at 11:37 AM on April 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


I think it was a mistake for Sanders to lean so hard on the speech transcripts as a campaign issue. It only works as a datapoint for people who already think Clinton is corrupt that their worldview is correct. Finding out whatever she blathered to Goldman Sachs sure as hell isn't going to put more food on my family.

And if she does ever plan on releasing them, better to save it for when Trump triples down on it. It was never something she needed to do to lock down the primary, which has more or less been hers to lose since early March.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:42 AM on April 26, 2016 [15 favorites]


We then had to maneuver that wee bit of overhanging paper into the scanner so it could pull it in, then hold onto the folder as it slid out... but not too tight or you'd hose it all up!

Yeah that's not a nightmare for people with disabilities. My father is a Virginia voter with essential tremor, which affects holding things pretty significantly.
posted by zutalors! at 11:44 AM on April 26, 2016




Also, one of them has already been released, though not by Clinton. The whole speech was about the importance of investing in women's education and women-focused small business loans on an international level. Not really the "I'm for sale, everything you do is perfect, I <3 banks no matter what" type content Clinton detractors had been promising.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:46 AM on April 26, 2016 [16 favorites]


What could be so bad in those things? Even if there's some shady stuff, the dollar amounts aren't going to be Romney-sized...

I've said this before, but I doubt there's anything "shady" in them. I'd bet there are investments or jobs that are uncomfortable for Sanders in light of his anti-Wall Street rhetoric, though. Just as I imagine the Clinton transcripts are bland but have soundbites that can be used to attack her (e.g., "The people at Goldman Sachs are some of the best and brightest in the world...") that she doesn't want to hand to Sanders.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:57 AM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


Jane Sanders just said that Bernie will not be releasing any more tax returns until Clinton releases her Wall Street speech transcripts.

First they dodge, then Jane lies and claims they're released, then they promise they'll release and just release 2014 . . . I dunno, to me it seems tax returns have a lot more potential for damaging information than speeches. Unless you truly believe Clinton is saying something like "fuck the poor, isn't Wall Street great guys, plus please put money in the bribe bucket on your way out."


anyway, this:
Well, given the Bernie campaign is about to need >60% of the final set of delegates to win after today, the tax returns and speeches are about to become very irrelevant.
posted by schroedinger at 11:59 AM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Finding out whatever she blathered to Goldman Sachs

Well, per this article on Daily Kos, she blathered at least once at length to them about lending more to women.

I don't understand why Sanders isn't getting his tax returns out there -- really basic disclosure for a Presidential candidate. It isn't a big deal as the end is in sight for his race, but I find it a head scratcher.
posted by bearwife at 12:04 PM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Rejoice! Our Long National Nightmare of Having More Than One Democrat to Vote For Shall Soon Be Over
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:04 PM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think it was a mistake for Sanders to lean so hard on the speech transcripts as a campaign issue.

I don't know. Bad for him in terms of a strategy for beating Clinton perhaps. But I think it's good to start asking these questions about where money is flowing from, where is it flowing to, who is being enriched and who is doing the enriching. Even if you think in the GS speeches case that there's no there there, I think it's great that we're starting to talk about the many ways in which DC and industry are enmeshed. I think we should be asking these questions about everyone. More transparency about money and politics - in all the forms that that may take. And a related issue -- more transparency about how the wealthy get and stay wealthy. Discussing whether someone -- anyone -- should make that much money per hour, as well as tangential issues that arise like - does it matter if the wealthy person is a woman or a member of another/multiple marginalized/unpaid groups? Does it matter what a politician does when they're not in office? Does the appearance of impropriety matter or only quid pro quo?

I don't think we've reached a consensus on these issues. But I think we've started a conversation that could change the way politics operates over the next 4-8 year cycle. Clinton withstood the challenge, but she's also a political heavyweight - I'm not sure that a different candidate (e.g., O'Malley) would have been able to successfully maneuver the issue. And I think future candidates, on the left at least, are going to be a bit more careful about what they do in the years leading up to an election and think a little bit harder about how and where they earn money. I mentioned this in a previous thread, but I think we're starting to see a real split in how people think about wealth and the wealthy, with a significant faction of the country starting to view wealth itself as distasteful (i.e. in order to have wealth you must have done something untoward, or inherited from those who did). It will be interesting to see where this sentiment leads; hopefully not nowhere.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:05 PM on April 26, 2016 [19 favorites]


Not really the "I'm for sale, everything you do is perfect, I <3 banks no matter what" type content Clinton detractors had been promising.

Then why not release them officially?

This happens again and again. Politicians think that not releasing things gives them some advantage when it almost never does (and yeah, looking sideways at you too, Bernie.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:08 PM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


Well, per this article on Daily Kos, she blathered at least once at length to them about lending more to women.

As a Clinton supporter, I was trying to be generous in the uncharitableness of my assumptions of what might be in the speeches, for the sake of balance.

melissasaurus: I agree that Sanders had important things to say about the influence of money on politics. But when your stump speech goes into this big sarcastic bit about how "Shakespearian" Clinton's speeches must have been to have commanded such a price, you're kind of losing the thread.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:10 PM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


From what I understand, the new MD paper ballot reader machines don't care how you insert the form. They read both sides automatically.
posted by postel's law at 12:14 PM on April 26, 2016


I will say that secrecy is rarely a successful campaign tactic. I understand HRC's turtling instinct after what she went through in the 90s, but I don't think it works.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:15 PM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


dw Maybe, just maybe, tonight will finally get us to the end game of the Democratic nomination.

It'd be nice to think so, but I'm doubtful. I'm betting Sanders will hang on until it is no longer mathematically possible for him to gain enough delegates to win, and possibly even longer now that his campaign has hypocritically shifted to claiming that they intend to urge superdelegates to overturn the will of the electorate.

My enthusiasm for Sanders has waned as the campaign has gone on. When I voted for him in Texas it was more out of a desire to see Clinton dragged further left than any real hope of him winning, and now as he implodes and starts making the left look bad I'm cringing and hoping he bails soon so he can extract the maximum leftward concessions from Clinton.

Right now I think he has passed the point of gaining more leverage the longer he stays in and he's starting to lose leverage if he sticks.

Clinton is going to win, it isn't mathematically certain yet, but it's close enough that pretending otherwise is just self delusion. Given that, the question now becomes how can Sanders best employ his assets to coerce Clinton into solid policy commitments, planks in the Democratic Party platform, and appointments?

Clearly Clinton intends to pack her cabinet with Wall Street types and other scum of the Earth, triangulate her way to tax cuts for rich people, and "trade" deals that sign away everything to corporations. The more of those appointees Sanders can force her to abandon and replace with real liberals, the more right wing policy positions he can coerce her into surrendering in favor of a left wing policy, the more promises he can extort from her to give up on the "trade" deals, the better off we are.

To my mind, at this point, that's Sanders' only job. He can't win. It was a nice dream, but sometimes we have to give up on the dream and make the best of reality that we can. And as, from my POV, I see Sanders pissing away his clout on extending his campaign rather than forcing Clinton to govern less like the closet Republican she is, the more it aggravates me.

He isn't doing his job, and to me it looks like he isn't doing his job for purely foolhardy and selfish reasons, and worse he's hurting the cause.
posted by sotonohito at 12:16 PM on April 26, 2016 [18 favorites]


Eh, the big sarcastic bit works for some of us. I think we should start looking upon wealth with this level of disdain and sarcasm. Like, you can't speak to people for an hour for less than six figures, but the rest of us should be happy with $12/hr? And for me, this isn't a Clinton vs Sanders issue it's a wealth inequality issue. I think we need to have these discussions about whether a person should be able to earn that much per hour when others are living in poverty.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:17 PM on April 26, 2016 [18 favorites]


According to the NY Times, after tonight Sanders will "reassess his candidacy," but stay in the race, whatever that means.
posted by The Bellman at 12:20 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think we need to have these discussions about whether a person should be able to earn that much per hour when others are living in poverty.

I get that you're saying we should do this with everybody, but it's striking to me that this seems to be targeted on Clinton, and not the many men who have had paid speeches. Someone of her experience and stature is just going to command a lot of money. We're constantly urging women to understand what they're worth, and yet somehow in this particular case Clinton was supposed to ask for less money.
posted by zutalors! at 12:23 PM on April 26, 2016 [33 favorites]


Clearly Clinton intends to pack her cabinet with Wall Street types and other scum of the Earth, triangulate her way to tax cuts for rich people, and "trade" deals that sign away everything to corporations. The more of those appointees Sanders can force her to abandon and replace with real liberals, the more right wing policy positions he can coerce her into surrendering in favor of a left wing policy, the more promises he can extort from her to give up on the "trade" deals, the better off we are.

I agree, and that's why I think Sanders needs to stay in the campaign until the convention: so he can show Clinton the numbers. He'll be able to say, "Look, you won, and I don't dispute it. But do you see these millions of people who prefer my platform? Nearly as many as voted for you? You need them if you want to win the general election and govern with even a modicum of legitimacy or public support. What are you going to do to convince them to vote for you instead of staying home?"
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:23 PM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump rejects new adviser’s push to make him ‘presidential’

This article has it all!
  • Catty infighting among campaign factions!
  • A new campaign manager who brings whiffs of corruption and private dealings with enemies of the US!
  • Public and private conflict between the candidate and staff!
  • Poor organization fucking everything up!
SAD!
posted by schroedinger at 12:23 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


Well, per this article on Daily Kos, she blathered at least once at length to them about lending more to women.

Eh, not really - even that article admits that this particular speech was from an unpaid speech at an event for their 10,000 Women initiative. And the video's been public for years.

The speeches people are interested in are the ones for which she got paid a ton of money and which were not available to the public, but were given behind closed doors to GS employees. As reported a couple of months ago, at least one attendee described it as a "rah rah" speech at which she "sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director," speaking glowingly about how great it was that the bank was creating jobs.

It doesn't sound like anything terribly damaging, it's just one more thing that makes it seem like she'll say whatever the group she's currently speaking to wants to hear. Kind of like how she'll take either a pro- or anti-Second Amendment stance depending on which state she's campaigning in. One of her big debate themes was about how tough she was on the banks and how she went down to Wall Street and told them to cut it out, so it would look bad if it turned out that she'd been going to Goldman Sachs and other banks and basically telling them good job, thanks for creating so many jobs, and we should think about rolling back parts of Dodd-Frank, as the attendees of some of those speeches reported.

I also agree that Sanders should release his tax returns, and for pretty much the exact same reasons: you're running for the top office in the entire nation and your secrecy on this request for disclosure makes it look like you have something to hide. Absent any real justification for the delay, it looks seriously suspicious, and I think the people you're asking to vote you into high office have a right to know what it is you're so concerned about us finding out before we make our decision.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 12:24 PM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


Clearly Clinton intends to pack her cabinet with Wall Street types and other scum of the Earth, triangulate her way to tax cuts for rich people, and "trade" deals that sign away everything to corporations. The more of those appointees Sanders can force her to abandon and replace with real liberals, the more right wing policy positions he can coerce her into surrendering in favor of a left wing policy, the more promises he can extort from her to give up on the "trade" deals, the better off we are.

See, this irks me. Those of us who are Clinton supporters disagree with this narrative that she's a DINO corporate shill who wants nothing but business as usual. If she does what I expect her do, and appoint actual progressives to her cabinet, the Sanders supporters will take credit for it. And thus the smear continues.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 12:36 PM on April 26, 2016 [44 favorites]


Somebody said it here very eloquently before, but the content of the speeches is a sideshow, and it's distracting from the fact that she has been paid enormous sums of money by banks. Quibbling over the content obscures the real situation: that huge banks paid an active politician really a GIGANTIC sum of money for the "labor" of giving a speech. This allows them to make a huge donation directly to a politician with no regulation...

It does not really matter what was in the speeches, ultimately. Perhaps it would if it was a Romneyesque 47% situation, but the greater reality is not about what she said, and that's what saddens and frustrates me about this debate over the content.
posted by eyesontheroad at 12:38 PM on April 26, 2016 [30 favorites]


I get that you're saying we should do this with everybody, but it's striking to me that this seems to be targeted on Clinton,

As though she were running for president or something.

yet somehow in this particular case Clinton was supposed to ask for less money.

It's not that Clinton leans in too dang far, but that receiving that much money as a private citizen from businesses you are likely to regulate as a politician creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:39 PM on April 26, 2016 [16 favorites]


Clearly Clinton intends to pack her cabinet with Wall Street types and other scum of the Earth, triangulate her way to tax cuts for rich people, and "trade" deals that sign away everything to corporations.

Clinton's tax proposals would raise half a trillion dollars over a decade largely by raising taxes on the wealthy. I understand that's just her starting position for bargaining but it's far from clear she wants to cut taxes for rich people.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 12:39 PM on April 26, 2016 [19 favorites]


If she does what I expect her do, and appoint actual progressives to her cabinet, the Sanders supporters will take credit for it. And thus the smear continues.

Who cares? Progressives will have gotten what we want, and Bernie supporters who aren't supporting Clinton can go eat shit with the PUMAs of 2008.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:39 PM on April 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


Speaking of raising lots of money, I found this exchange from the New York Times link disturbing.

When asked how he could in good faith continue to raise money while promising that he has a pathway to the nomination, Mr. Sanders frowned.

“As opposed to candidates who raise millions of dollars from Wall Street and the drug companies and the fossil fuel industries?” Mr. Sanders said. “As opposed to me who raises $27 apiece running a campaign that has now won 16 states and that has closed the gap? Yeah, I think we are doing just fine.”


First, Sanders is raising millions and millions, and I do think he needs to answer the question about what he is promising in exchange at this point. Second, Clinton may have been paid a lot for speeches to Wall Street, but I do not believe there is any basis to claim her campaign is funded by Wall Street, drug companies, and fossil fuel. In fact, her small donor support is nothing to sniff at. And finally, Bernie is in la la land if he thinks he is closing the gap. . . in delegates, votes or super delegates, he is far behind.

Most of all, I think Sanders needs to stop slandering Clinton and start explaining what the path ahead is for the movement he has built. Trump is already exploiting the situation by tweeting that Sanders should run as an independent and routinely referring to Clinton as "Crooked Hillary."
posted by bearwife at 12:39 PM on April 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


Er, sorry, that came out more offensive than I wanted... The point is, if the outcomes are right, who cares who gets credit for them? Bernie's candidacy has in fact forced Hillary to be more full-throated about her support for some progressive causes. If she keeps those promises, Bernie-or-busters won't matter, and any other Bernie supporters will probably be happy with the outcome, so I don't see a problem.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:40 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


I get that you're saying we should do this with everybody, but it's striking to me that this seems to be targeted on Clinton,

As though she were running for president or something.


You're quoting me while neatly skipping the point of my comment, which was about how women are criticized for making money.
posted by zutalors! at 12:42 PM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


I was told that NY and PA etc don't matter. Sanders is staking it all on California to win the nomination.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:43 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


The point is, if the outcomes are right, who cares who gets credit for them?

I dunno, it might matter to some people that the first woman president get credit for the actual good things she accomplishes
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:44 PM on April 26, 2016 [37 favorites]


From what I understand, the new MD paper ballot reader machines don't care how you insert the form. They read both sides automatically.

The Virginia ones are the same, but they still require the ballot to be fed into them under about 5 degrees of true. If you instead made a scanner that took in, say, an 11 inch wide piece of paper and then made the ballots 8x8 you could put them in at near to a 45 degree turn and they'd still go in without a problem.
posted by phearlez at 12:44 PM on April 26, 2016


I dunno, it might matter to some people that the first woman president get credit for the actual good things she accomplishes

But she will, by virtue of actually doing the things she promised to do. Politicians break campaign promises all the time. I just don't see the point of getting hung up on whose supporters get credit.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:46 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just voted outside of Philly. There was an overpowering smell of motor oil and a Curious George lunchbox socked away in a corner. I was greatly attracted to said lunch box and tried to get my better half to steal it for me, but alas, no; only civic duties were performed.
posted by angrycat at 12:50 PM on April 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


Trump rejects new adviser’s push to make him ‘presidential’

“That's Trump. If you try to force him into a box, he's going to climb out of the box just to prove it to you,” said one operative close to the campaign.


Yeah, I remember when my niece went through that phase...but she's six now.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:51 PM on April 26, 2016 [21 favorites]


It's impossible to separate Clinton-the-woman from Clinton-the-presidential-candidate and from Clinton-the-wealthy-person and from Clinton-the-white-person etc. - these issues are intersectional. If there are going to be wealthy people, I want the composition of the wealthy class to more closely resemble the demographics of the country. But I think it's important to not beg the question - should we have wealthy people at all? If so, what level of wealth is ok? Not just income - but wealth. Is that good for society? But it's equally important to not sidestep the fact that we live in a misogynistic society and have an economy that is woefully inadequate for most of the women within it.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:51 PM on April 26, 2016 [14 favorites]


As long as we are returning in this thread to the Sanders theme of bashing Clinton for taking big speakers fees for speaking to big companies (and adding that anyone who is rich is morally suspect,) I'm going to point out again that Clinton didn't have any conflict of interest as a private citizen or do anything suspect by speaking for large sums. And Sanders knew this quite well at the start of his own campaign -- to quote the New York Times again --

Mr. Sanders’s advisers urged him to challenge Mrs. Clinton over accepting $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for delivering three speeches, according to two Sanders advisers. They thought the speaking fees meshed with the senator’s message about Wall Street excess and a rigged America. But Mr. Sanders, hunched over a U-shaped conference table, rejected it as a personal attack on Mrs. Clinton’s income — the sort of character assault he has long opposed. She has the right to make money, he offered.

In short, Clinton didn't do anything extraordinary by speaking for big bucks, nor is it usual to release the transcripts of such speeches -- though it is to turn over tax returns.

I am quite sure that Clinton -- unlike her husband -- is also no corporate shill. She has had a long career in politics and that is simply not her m.o. Corporations can expect plenty of oversight and regulation from her, just like what she has consistently advocated for in the past.
posted by bearwife at 12:54 PM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's impossible to separate Clinton-the-woman from Clinton-the-presidential-candidate and from Clinton-the-wealthy-person and from Clinton-the-white-person etc. - these issues are intersectional.

Totally agree, thanks for this. I'm just weary of the no-this-isnt-sexism stuff because it's always there and always something to think about. As is your topic of inequality and how wealth affects elections.
posted by zutalors! at 12:56 PM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


Duffell, I'm glad you two already voted, and congratulations!
posted by SillyShepherd at 12:57 PM on April 26, 2016


Then why not release them officially?

Because this is the same damn gamut the GOP has used for the last 20+ years with the Clintons -- demand more and more information, glean out a couple words, then demand more.

I mean, how many rounds of Benghazi hearings and inquiries are we on? And what have they found? Close to nothing. But. Close to nothing. Not nothing. Close to it. Enough to create another million bucks of soft money contributions.

Honestly, I don't really care about the Goldman transcripts or Bernie's tax records. It's a stupid fishing expedition when we should be talking about real issues. And the Bernie and Hillary campaigns have a LOT of real issues they've brought up.
posted by dw at 12:59 PM on April 26, 2016 [19 favorites]


Josh Marshall: "Millennials aren't just liberal. They're getting more liberal. And rather than being liberal on policy issues but alienated from the Democratic party, they're actually become significantly more identified with the Democratic party during this primary process."
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:00 PM on April 26, 2016 [12 favorites]


Totally agree, thanks for this. I'm just weary of the no-this-isnt-sexism stuff because it's always there and always something to think about. As is your topic of inequality and how wealth affects elections.

All I can say is that being a Marxist feminist during this election cycle has been...complicated.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:03 PM on April 26, 2016 [15 favorites]


Clinton didn't have any conflict of interest as a private citizen or do anything suspect by speaking for large sums.

This is another piece that gets me a bit - that she was "not an active politician" in that time, and that for some reason Goldman Sachs just really wanted her POV on stuff. She was a former senator and former Sec. of State, very clearly positioned to have a very good shot at being the president, and to pretend otherwise seems dishonest. Of course, it wasn't illegal what she did, and as a "private citizen" she had every right to do so...

But if we can't agree that this seems very much like a comfortable way to channel more than half a million dollars to someone with very close connections to levers of power, then I don't really know how else to discuss it.

And now that we're requiring "proof of quid pro quo," rather than the obvious appearance of impropriety, we're just fucked. It's not that she did something "suspect," it's that this very arrangement is in fact the arrangement that has many people happy to hear Bernie Sanders saying what he's saying about the relationship between capital, power, and elections in this country at this time.
posted by eyesontheroad at 1:05 PM on April 26, 2016 [18 favorites]


that TPM article is quite hopeful.
posted by andrewcooke at 1:05 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Because this is the same damn gamut the GOP has used for the last 20+ years with the Clintons -- demand more and more information, glean out a couple words, then demand more.

I find it very hard to believe that if the situations were reversed that Hillary would not be hammering at Bernie to release his transcripts.
posted by futz at 1:07 PM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


I can't wait to see what the 2018 midterms look like. Hopefully Democrats are starting to get the point and will do more to reject big donors/Super PAC money (can we all agree that Super PAC is a stupid term?)/etc. I think some of them are hoping the campaign finance issue will go away after this election and they can return to business as usual and act offended when you bring up the corrupting influence. But I doubt it.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:13 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


I find it very hard to believe that if the situations were reversed that Hillary would not be hammering at Bernie to release his transcripts.

Really? Then why isn't she hammering at him to release his tax returns?
posted by bearwife at 1:13 PM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


Because she's winning.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:14 PM on April 26, 2016


She failed to hammer while Bernie was piling up his 2 weeks of wins too.
posted by bearwife at 1:16 PM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


man, you should see the shitty campaign $your_candidate is running in MY hypothetical world
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:16 PM on April 26, 2016 [27 favorites]


Really? Then why isn't she hammering at him to release his tax returns?

Because she doesn't want to draw more about to her transcripts? Maybe?
posted by futz at 1:18 PM on April 26, 2016


[Maybe we can set this n'th round of "tax returns vs. speech transcripts" down for now?]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:19 PM on April 26, 2016 [22 favorites]


I think she's pretty much ignoring him at this point -- I listened this morning to the podcasted town hall that she did with Rachel Maddow yesterday and that was my takeaway. Engaging directly or attacking Sen. Sanders doesn't do any good for Sec. Clinton right now and it has the potential to hurt her by alienating his supporters.

She's pivoting to attack Trump and the Republicans (and, I think, she will preemptively try to tie the GOP as closely as possible to Trump so as to head off their strategy of distancing themselves from him in purple/blue districts & states.)

I agree in large extent with supporters of Sec. Clinton that Sen. Sanders would do well to pivot (back) to an issues-based campaign focused on building progressive energy for the upcoming general election and on establishing a stronger and better permanent progressive infrastructure for supporting good candidates at all tiers and in off-year elections.

I am also sympathetic to people in California and elsewhere who (in these threads and elsewhere) have said that they do want the chance to vote for their preferred candidate even if they (he, to be specific) aren't mathematically able to win. And I think that a vote for Sen. Sanders is not a wasted vote -- it's a meaningful representation of progressive energy within the Democratic Party and it has already shifted the conversation both in the party and in the country at large.

A cranky old socialist has won something like 20% of the votes cast in this primary season. I think that changes the landscape in important ways that may not necessarily be seen even this year; in the same way Occupy, although it fizzled, made income inequality a household touchpoint in a way that it absolutely was not ten years ago.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:25 PM on April 26, 2016 [19 favorites]


it's that this very arrangement is in fact the arrangement that has many people happy to hear Bernie Sanders saying what he's saying

Yeah, and it should be pointed out. But until there's a law that's passed, I'm not entirely in favor of voluntarily cutting off important methods of funding either.
posted by FJT at 1:29 PM on April 26, 2016


While I understand the advantages of a closed primary, it's really bumming me out to hear that my friends in Maryland who are unaffiliated couldn't vote for anything more than the local school board. Like, these are people who are normally not into politics, and I've done my part to get them interested, but they didn't want to declare a party because they don't care to be in one, and now they couldn't select a Senator or a Congressperson. Sigh.

I'll be heading to the polls just before they close at 8 PM. I've been really on the fence about Edwards vs Van Hollen, since from everything I've read that are unbiased, they're both very similar. So I plan on supporting Edwards to add some diversity to the Senate.

And I haven't made up my mind about Sanders and Clinton. I think I'm going to flip a coin at the booth.
posted by numaner at 1:31 PM on April 26, 2016


Oh yeah, another important outcome (I hope) is primary reform -- I think all sides agree that there needs to be a better process that is more transparent and which reflects the basic democratic assumptions that ordinary American voters have come to expect.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:34 PM on April 26, 2016


I'd be really surprised if there were any substantial primary changes. 2008 was worse and not much reform came out of that. People will have forgotten the whole thing by the fall.
posted by octothorpe at 1:40 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


I doubt that people will forget. There are a whole lot of pissed off people from both parties. I hope not anyway. But change is difficult when it benefits the powerful.

Of course, apathy may win out again.
posted by futz at 1:46 PM on April 26, 2016


The main reforms you'll see are states dumping caucuses -- Colorado almost certainly will, and Washington Democrats are getting a lot of pressure to start using the already-existing state primary. (This could be moved along by a Democrat taking the Secretary of State job.) New York will likely see primary reforms, e.g. ending the noon start time upstate.

But that may be it. I keep hoping other states besides Oregon and Washington would shift to vote-by-mail given its success in both states, but looks like that ain't happening.

My main hope is that Clinton will put together a SCOTUS that will finally deal with gerrymandering and push states to go to a standardized, non-partisan districting system for the post-2020 election season. Gerrymandering needs to be dealt with, and soon.
posted by dw at 1:48 PM on April 26, 2016 [17 favorites]


And campaign finance reform/repeal of Citizens United. And extended voting -- e.g. over a long weekend, for those states that retain in person voting. And requirements for an adequate number of and adequately staffed voting facilities. The federal right to vote should carry with it a whole lot more legal protections.
posted by bearwife at 1:57 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


My main hope is that Clinton will put together a SCOTUS that will finally deal with gerrymandering and push states to go to a standardized, non-partisan districting system for the post-2020 election season. Gerrymandering needs to be dealt with, and soon.

I know I always say it in these threads but gerrymandering is just a symptom of under representation of people in Congress. The quick and easy fix (at least to a first approximation) is to give every congressional district ten house members and elect all ten of them with at large with party ticket IRV. It'll quickly fuck over gerrymandering and the under representation of the house that has plagued this country for the last century.
posted by Talez at 1:57 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Part of your solution for dysfunctional government is to expand our lower house to 4350 members? I'm not sure you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.
posted by Justinian at 2:02 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


Justinian, I'd be very happy to see the House expand that much. It might be a bit too much, but eh. It's too damn small now, and that tiny size is what makes it easy to gerrymander.

I'd also say that getting rid of districts entirely and replacing them with a statewide IRV or cumulative voting system is a good idea. But if we can't have that at least some sort of algorithmic solve for gerrymandering.

But we need to at least double the size of the House simply to help relieve some of the systemic under representation that's taking place.
posted by sotonohito at 2:06 PM on April 26, 2016


I think you guys are grossly underestimating the issues that arise with huge parliamentary sizes. It may well solve some problems but it would introduce brand new ones.
posted by Justinian at 2:09 PM on April 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


Ok, there's a woman with the last name "Flowers" running for US Senate from MD for the Green party.

I'm really tempted to vote for her in the general.
posted by numaner at 2:09 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Only in America could a bastard of Highgarden become a US Senator.
posted by Justinian at 2:14 PM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


Like, these are people who are normally not into politics, and I've done my part to get them interested, but they didn't want to declare a party because they don't care to be in one

Then why should they get a voice in the party's nominee?

I mean, the process asks almost nothing of them. They don't have to contribute time or money. There's no requirement that they actually vote for the nominee in the real election. Nobody was going to tattoo D or R on their foreheads. Literally the only thing asked of them is to say "Yes, I'd like to vote in that party's nomination processes."

AND THEY SAID NO, because it hurts them in their heart or whatever. Why the hell should they get a say when they were clearly and specifically offered that say, at absolutely no cost whatsoever, and refused it?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:15 PM on April 26, 2016 [35 favorites]


I think you guys are grossly underestimating the issues that arise with huge parliamentary sizes. It may well solve some problems but it would introduce brand new ones.

The one we have is broken beyond repair. The question is how long it holds out.
posted by Talez at 2:16 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


The thing I like about statewide IRV is that, unlike increasing the size of the House, it could be done by a state. The Constitution does not specify geographic constituencies or FPP the voting, so no Constitutional amendment.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:16 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm still mildly confused that over here in Pittsburgh I got to vote about whether Philadelphia traffic court should be put out of its misery.

I left that blank as I had no idea. PA doesn't send out sample ballots and I didn't try to dig one up online so I seeing that on the ballot screen was the first I'd heard of it.
posted by octothorpe at 2:19 PM on April 26, 2016


I voted in MD earlier this afternoon. Bernie for the nom, Bernie supporters for the delegates, and Edwards for the senate (she seems practically similar to Van Hollen, but I think more diversity in leadership roles is better for everyone). The only local race with opposition was my school board... I don't have kids, so I considered abstaining, but I figured that making an informed choice based on my politics was the better option. It was really hard. Finding info on the candidates lead me to a single source, with their bios and personal statements. The personal statements were fairly uniform in their goals, so a lot of it came down to trying to figure out politics based on keywords, and using their bios as a fallback. I wish I'd been more informed, but I feel like I did better than not voting, or just picking randomly.
posted by codacorolla at 2:22 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


In Hawaii news, apparently the state was granted one new superdelegate (for a total of 10) a few weeks ago (the Lt. Gov. is the head of the Nat'l Lt. Gov.'s Assn. so he gets a superdelegate vote through that I guess).

There were long lines and various voting issues for the caucus/preference poll, including no uniform or published poll closing time, and according to this article, it seems that the governor at least is considering the idea of switching to a primary (which has the added benefit of including downticket races). My caucus wasn't *horrible* but we did have to wait for several hours in line (the weather was great and people set up games and stuff for kids and were handing out food and water, and letting people jump in line if they had to go to work, but those things shouldn't have been necessary in the first place) -- and we would have had to wait an addition 1-2 hours for the actual precinct meeting if we wanted to participate in that (we had family in town so couldn't make it work). Also, I'm a pretty well-informed voter, and was highly motivated to vote in this election particularly, but this was my first caucus experience (former NYer) and before voting day it was really hard to figure out what was going to happen at the caucus and how one could participate and where to go and do we need to stay after we cast a ballot, etc. I really hope caucuses are on their way out nationally.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:24 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Only in America could a bastard of Highgarden become a US Senator.

Well a bastard of Winterfell (who tried to be different and added an 'e' to her name) was a Senator already, so it's not unprecedented.
posted by numaner at 2:25 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


2009 NYT: Expand the House?
The original House had 65 representatives, one for every 33,000 people. As the country’s population grew over the next century, so did the size of the House, until it reached 435 in 1911, when each member at that time representing an average of 212,000 people.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:26 PM on April 26, 2016


The thing I like about statewide IRV is that, unlike increasing the size of the House, it could be done by a state. The Constitution does not specify geographic constituencies or FPP the voting, so no Constitutional amendment.

Sadly the liberal states are the ones that would stand to see more hard right representation surface. California for instance with sees 38% R vote pick up 28% of the congressional seats. Republicans would just pick up 5 seats with the change and like hell they'll unfuck states like Alabama where 66% of the vote delivers 85% of the seats.
posted by Talez at 2:26 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


The only local race with opposition was my school board... I don't have kids, so I considered abstaining, but I figured that making an informed choice based on my politics was the better option. It was really hard

Ballotpedia actually has a lot of local election information to check out, including the MCPS elections. Most of the candidates have a video message, but I think I might go for Sebastian Johnson and Jeanette Dixon.
posted by numaner at 2:29 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


I really hope caucuses are on their way out nationally.

Ditto. I enjoyed ours, but 1) they ran out of parking; 2) it took forever and 3) it involved an tiny number of voters compared to the number that normally vote in primaries. It was, in short, fundamentally not democratic, and in particular not designed to accommodate working people with limited time and transportation resources. The rationale for caucuses in our state -- Washington -- is to reward party activists but frankly I think we shouldn't do that at the cost of making it too tough for too many to cast their vote.
posted by bearwife at 2:29 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


AND THEY SAID NO, because it hurts them in their heart or whatever. Why the hell should they get a say when they were clearly and specifically offered that say, at absolutely no cost whatsoever, and refused it?

Are we asking best-interest or ethically?

Best interest - Because the party would like them to vote for a candidate in the general too?

Ethically - because the parties run their closed private group selection process at the expense of the general populace, who funds the election boards that administer the elections. And it's not a tiny quantity of money. So you can make a case that everyone should get to participate.

And really, there's little reason not to let everyone participate. The studies pretty consistently say the impact of spoiling is trivial. And if you get engagement/a candidate that more folk will vote for it's a party win.

Yeah, all they have to do is tick a box and pick a party to get to participate, so that's the same right? Like if we had a state-run park that you had to affirm you were Christian before you were allowed to come in? I mean, unless it hurts you in your heart or whatever, why not? There's no cost whatsoever.
posted by phearlez at 2:30 PM on April 26, 2016 [13 favorites]


There are a number of huge problems with our primary system (disenfranchisement through the use of overly burdensome ID requirements, disenfranchisement because of the burdensome nature of a caucus, the lack of guaranteed time off work to vote, poorly trained election volunteers, inept or corrupt election officials who do things like whatever the hell went on this year in Brooklyn, felon disenfranchisement, etc). Not one of these problems is new this year. I hope the people newly affected by these problems choose to engage with the ongoing efforts to fix them (Moral Mondays and the like).

Restricting primary voting by party is not one of these problems. It is logical and fair to guarantee that only the members of a party get to choose the party's nominee. Changing that completely logical and fair policy to try and get around the separate problem that two parties have a lock on our government is bad policy.
posted by sallybrown at 2:32 PM on April 26, 2016 [13 favorites]


I think checking a box indication you were a Christian in order to get to select the leader of Christianity would make a lot of sense.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:35 PM on April 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yeah, all they have to do is tick a box and pick a party to get to participate, so that's the same right? Like if we had a state-run park that you had to affirm you were Christian before you were allowed to come in? I mean, unless it hurts you in your heart or whatever, why not? There's no cost whatsoever.

This is a nonsensical comparison.
posted by sallybrown at 2:36 PM on April 26, 2016 [20 favorites]


it seems like Christie has recovered from eating the bowls of shit that is his Trump endorsement as he seems to be all over WNYC after an absence
posted by angrycat at 2:37 PM on April 26, 2016


Ballotpedia actually has a lot of local election information to check out

Well, damn. Bookmarked.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:37 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


And my argument is coming from a person who was registered unaffiliated in a closed primary state for a decade, knowing that that choice (which I made freely) resulted in my not having a say in a major party primary. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
posted by sallybrown at 2:39 PM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm still mildly confused that over here in Pittsburgh I got to vote about whether Philadelphia traffic court should be put out of its misery.

The Traffic Court has historically been a haven for corruption, incompetence, and patronage. It is part of the giant shitshow that characterizes Harrisburg's control of Philadelphia parking regulation and enforcement. Ballotpedia has a good summary.
posted by schroedinger at 2:45 PM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


AND THEY SAID NO, because it hurts them in their heart or whatever. Why the hell should they get a say when they were clearly and specifically offered that say, at absolutely no cost whatsoever, and refused it?

Because it's not really fair, is it? These parties are formed through the state's bureaucracy, beholding to all living in the state, but then they can close ranks once they got the voters they need and damn the ones who are on the fence until the general. While I can see how closed primaries can help against a candidate like trump, it's still denying a voice for the people. Sure, people might be idiots, but you have to have hope that the majority are not when it comes to the general.

And in reverse, what is the cost of just letting everyone vote how they want? I'd like to see research that cross-party voting can really ruin a primary. I remember reading that past research has shown that it's not really a problem.

on preview: what phearlez said. And also, to sallybrown: Again, I understand the point of closed primaries, but the problem that arises from it is, as you said, a symptom of having a (primarily) two party system. I feel like having open primaries could alleviate some of those problems.

And Elementary Penguin, if that analogy is accurate, it's all the more reason these parties shouldn't be run like they are, which you're equating to a religion. So either it's not an accurate analogy, or these parties are ruining our politics and should be abolished. I could go for either.
posted by numaner at 2:47 PM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


Restricting primary voting by party is not one of these problems. It is logical and fair to guarantee that only the members of a party get to choose the party's nominee.

One thing that was good about how Hawaii handles it is that you can register and/or affiliate with the party at the door. I still prefer the system that says you can be registered in whatever party you want but you can only pick one party's ballot, but that's not among the top 10 hills I'm willing to die on. Day of registration and affiliation -- without voter ID -- would solve at least some of the problems.

In some ways, running an election is like running a comments section -- if you're relying on volunteers to do it, you're going to end up making it an unpleasant experience for a lot of people. I wish some fraction of the billions of dollars that will be spent on this election (or made by the media this election) were spent on building voting infrastructure capable of supporting participation by full the voting age population, that makes it simple to vote, and that examines not just explicit bias but also implicit bias and disparate impact. While I'm at it, a unicorn and a wish-granting genie too.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:48 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


My dad bought some bumper stickers that say "Loose with Cruz". I count't figure out if it was just a bad slogan or bad spelling or what.

Internet comments have jumped the divide.
posted by spitbull at 2:52 PM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Numaner, I don't think they are like a religion. I am not the one who compared registering as a Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary to religious tests to enter national parks. My point was that the analogy was inaccurate.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:55 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ah, I'd seen Ballotpedia pop up in early Google searches, but didn't follow through for some reason. Good to know for November. I ended up using a local news station's election guide, which turned out well enough.
posted by codacorolla at 2:56 PM on April 26, 2016


I just voted in Maryland – it was quick and painless. One poll worker did give instructions to another voter and myself at the same time, in a way that made our respective party affiliations obvious to one another – I think she was trying to keep the line moving. I don't care who knows my party, but it could have been more confidential.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 2:57 PM on April 26, 2016


I lost my edit time, but I was trying to amend my comment: I agreed with most of what phearlez said, but yes, to your point, that analogy with parks and Christianity wasn't really accurate.

(I failed reading comprehension as I'm trying to watch my script run, comment on this thread, and trying to pack up so I can go home and vote!)
posted by numaner at 2:57 PM on April 26, 2016


Anything that forces the two current main parties to open up, even if just a little bit, is a good thing. They've had a monopoly on the options for too long. We need to find a way to break them up so they can actually start representing the people that vote for them.
posted by downtohisturtles at 2:58 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


The reforms after 2000 did help in a number of states, even with the Diebold quasi-scandal. We saw early voting, the elimination of punch cards, and standardization of the balloting system.

Some states went further (WA's vote-by-mail, OR's automatic voter registration), but that's just more of the same problem -- our registration and balloting system isn't standardized, our districts are gerrymandered, and yes, Citizens United is a problem (tho more for downballot elections).

The Voting Rights Acts helped with this, but with it now wiped out we should re-consider what it really brought us. It wasn't just keeping states and localities from suppressing voting, it was also setting a baseline for what we expect from our elections.

In an ideal world, we'd have mandatory voting, automatic registration, vote-by-mail, paper trails, and campaign finance reform. I wouldn't go as far as saying we should have state-funded elections, but I would like to see a zero anonymity system where there are no dark pools of money in super-PACs. But the way I vote in Seattle should be no different from how someone votes in Schenectady. And right now, it is.
posted by dw at 3:04 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm excited about the Anthony Weiner documentary, as I recall fondly that more innocent time.
posted by angrycat at 3:10 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'll be slow to support abandoning the two party system. It has multiple advantages, not least stability. Coalition government, the common result of multiple parties, can lead to very unrepresentative election outcomes. I also think the shortcomings of our current parties could be addressed by way of basic reforms like ending gerrymandering, campaign finance reform/repeal of Citizens United, dumping the filibuster, and everything dw just suggested.

I would love to see the current Republican party take a huge body blow, which I think is likely to happen when Trump becomes the nominee, if that forced it to move back to an umbrella structure that included liberal and moderate wings.
posted by bearwife at 3:14 PM on April 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


Joe is focusing on the Senate

Choice quote, Tempting Fate Edition:
“Joe Biden spent a lot of time talking about the Obama-Biden record during the 2014 campaign and that worked out well,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee communications director Andrea Bozek. “His office is free to contact us to help with scheduling.”
posted by psoas at 3:28 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wonder how much of Trump's success has been due to xenophobia and the fact that two of the final three opponents had Latino last names? (Cruz and Rubio) And the other has a name that Trump (and his trumpsters) can't spell?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:33 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


The one downside of Ballotpedia is they basically won't remove inaccurate information in local races, so if for example the FBI were investigating your local political opponent for sending lynching cartoons anonymously to your house and calling in threats to your children at school AND ALSO happened to flood your Ballotpedia page with blatantly false information that is trivially easy to disprove AND ALSO added personal contact info to your Ballotpedia page so that it became a constant clickthrough source for rape threats even after you left politics and changed your publicly-listed phone number and e-mail, it would take you two years after you left public life to get the personal contact info removed by Ballotpedia, and they'd still leave all the false information up, and refuse to add any of the contrary information you provided because it contradicts what they've already got.

I mean it's POSSIBLE that might be an interaction someone had with Ballotpedia.

I think they're good on national races but on local they don't do any vetting and the first guy to flood them with information gets to control the narrative, and they have zero awareness that they can be used as a vector for abuse. And absolutely zero responsiveness.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:40 PM on April 26, 2016 [45 favorites]


If anyone is interested in business tax reform, there was a Senate Finance Committee hearing earlier today and the Joint Committee on Taxation released a decent background primer [autodownloading pdf] on the issues.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:00 PM on April 26, 2016


Why Bernie Sanders is Winning as explained by College Humor.
posted by humanfont at 4:07 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


I mean it's POSSIBLE that might be an interaction someone had with Ballotpedia.

Yyyyyyyyyikes.
posted by psoas at 4:09 PM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


At least one of those four advantages for two-party systems listed at study.com is explicitly in comparison to single-party systems.

With first-past-the-post elections we've got you could have a party that got a consistent, solid, evenly-distributed 25% support throughout the electorate that would result in zero elected officials representing that part of the population. The built-in design which makes two parties the stable state of the system is that even when everything is working as it's supposed to, ~50% or less of the vote wins 100% of the political power. (As I understand it, at least.)

Whatever else, if we really do achieve a political revolution at some point and expend the massive amount of effort necessary to make fundamental changes, we should not let that be shunted off or grounded out by settling for that number becoming a smidge closer to 50% or some other minor measure like that so that it all amounts to bread and circuses.
posted by XMLicious at 4:28 PM on April 26, 2016


I just got in from voting in northern Rhoide Island.

The optical scanning machine that accepts the ballots was suddenly busted, and one lady was darkly asking a poll worker, "Is it voter fraud?!" as we stuffed our ballots into the machine's body and all headed straight to the table with the disaffiliation forms.

The older, nattily-dressed gentleman tending the (now broken) scanner gave me a roll of like ten stickers; being able to wear so many "I voted!" stickers feels more like Chicago Politics than Rhode Island...but only a little. :7)
posted by wenestvedt at 4:33 PM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


melissasaurus: "the Lt. Gov. is the head of the Nat'l Lt. Gov.'s Assn. "

Boy, *those* must be exciting meetings!
posted by Chrysostom at 4:48 PM on April 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


LORD HIGH LT. GOV: brethren! today is the day we strike at the full-governors! today is the day we take what is ours!
LT. GOVS: [hissing noises]

that's pretty much as far as I can imagine it
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:51 PM on April 26, 2016 [21 favorites]


To the closed primary thing - Rhode Island does a halfway option, with a modified or semi-open. Party members and non-affiliated voters can vote, but not people who are members of another party. This strikes me as a reasonable compromise, in that it shuts out the theoretical "spoiler voters from the other party" scenario, but still isn't fully closed.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:53 PM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


Maryland Primary Election 2016 Live

Voting was extended by one hour at four polling locations in Baltimore after the U.S. Senate campaign of Rep. Donna Edwards sought a court order to keep late-opening Baltimore polling sites open past the 8 p.m. closing time.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:01 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was told that NY and PA etc don't matter. Sanders is staking it all on California to win the nomination.

What? Can anyone elaborate more on this? As far as I can tell, there's no way in hell Bernie could win California by a big enough margin to make up for his losses elsewhere. 538 has him at a projected 41.4% of the vote. California's demographics don't favor a blowout Sanders win, given the trends in primary voting thus far, and a blow out is what he'd need. In Nate Silver's Bernie miracle path to the nomination, Sanders needed a 15 point popular vote margin to win in California, which seems nigh on impossible to me. Is this really what Sanders is banking on?
posted by yasaman at 5:02 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't think Sanders is banking on anything at this point. I think he knows that he's not going to win it, unless Hillary gets hit by a bus or something. He's staying in because he thinks he can still influence the platform and because he said he would stay in. He's got a lot of hardcore supporters in California, and I think they'd be terribly disappointed if they didn't get a chance to vote for him. I guess I still fail to see what great harm he does by staying in until the convention.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:07 PM on April 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


Sanders is following the path Hillary took in 2008. It is helpful to let everyone vote, rather than leaving supporters frustrated at the end of the primaries.
posted by humanfont at 5:10 PM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


Woof, looks like a real strong night for Trump. WTF is wrong with people?
posted by Chrysostom at 5:14 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton is the projected winner in Maryland, by the way, which is extremely not a surprise. Trump projected to win Maryland, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Sigh.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:16 PM on April 26, 2016


PA is only 17 committed delegates for Trump. The majority of PA's delegates are actually uncommitted and will probably end up as Cruz voters because PA is crazy that way.
posted by humanfont at 5:17 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, I don't have a problem with him staying in it until California. I'm a California voter, I too would like at least the illusion that my primary vote matters. I was more wondering if Sanders was making promises re California, like are his supporter emails full of "We can still win it in California!" Because frankly, that'd be a straight up impossibility barring Clinton getting hit by a bus in the next month. It's fine if Sanders is staying in until the convention, but I'd hope his campaign would be entering the "managing expectations" and "setting reasonable goals" phase at this point.
posted by yasaman at 5:22 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


He's staying in because he thinks he can still influence the platform and because he said he would stay in.

The concern is whether Sanders will focus on influencing the platform and the conversation in general, or will he be trying to take down Clinton personally as he seems to be pivoting to in the last few weeks.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:23 PM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


It seems to me like the takedowns of Hilary have mellowed out post-NY, but maybe that's just me.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 5:25 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


Not one of these problems is new this year.

This is what bugs me about Sanders' complaining about the process. Granted, the primary system has lots of flaws, but he knew the flaws before he decided to compete in the system, and I'm sure the flaws would've been less of a problem for him if he had won.

Trump's complaining about the process doesn't bug me because everything he says bugs me.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:31 PM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump went 5 for 5 tonight. He's clearly the presumptive nominee at this point in much the same way Clinton is.
posted by Justinian at 5:33 PM on April 26, 2016


He's clearly the presumptive nominee at this point in much the same way Clinton is.
I really don't think that's true. It would be true if the entire Democratic establishment was aghast and terrified by Clinton's nomination, which they're not.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:35 PM on April 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


I hope Sanders and his proxies will chill out with the attacks on Clinton after tonight. There is absolutely no way that he'll be the nominee and if he wants to trade in his influence with a future administration being a part of the team is better than trying to undermine the general election candidate.

I honestly don't care if he stays in or not. If his end-game is to influence the democratic platform then fine but other than that I don't really see the point of continuing to blow through cash like crazy other than to line Tad Devine's pockets.
posted by vuron at 5:39 PM on April 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


I didn't mean the reaction to the nomination I meant the likelihood of winning it.
posted by Justinian at 5:40 PM on April 26, 2016


     He's clearly the presumptive nominee at this point in much the same way Clinton is.

Agree that it's not quite true. Clinton is at 95% to win the nomination in the betting markets, Trump is at 74%. The betting markets are just one indicator, and should be taken them with a grain of salt, but the number seems right based on other analyses.
posted by fitnr at 5:41 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


So they've got Trump at something like 1:3... I think he's a surer bet than that at this point. Let's see what the odds look like tomorrow.
posted by Justinian at 5:42 PM on April 26, 2016


The issue with Trump is theoretical he can be stopped from hitting 1237 although with each successive asskicking of Cruz and Kasich that seems less and less likely. On the other hand it's practically impossible for Sanders to catch Clinton although he might be able to keep it close enough that she needs to superdelegates to put her over the top.

The betting markets aren't perfect by any means but they are highly reactive to any campaign movement and right now there seems to be at least some people willing to bet on a contested convention on the Republican side. I'm actually shocked that Clinton isn't getting up closer to a 99% margin but that might happen after tonight.

It will be interesting to see how Clinton solidifies her polling lead over Trump because she's going to have at least a couple of weeks where Trump still has to appeal to Republicans while Clinton can bash the shit out of him.
posted by vuron at 5:47 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


People keep bringing up attacks but this election cycle is incredibly tame compared to 2008. Clinton went after Obama hard core. And he went after her. I have no problem with that. It is an election for president after all.
posted by futz at 5:48 PM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well, it's hard to get to 99 when some jokers are keeping Biden at 1.4.
posted by fitnr at 5:50 PM on April 26, 2016


Well it's looking like Bernie probably avoided the sweep with a win in Rhode Island but he's basically getting wrecked in PA, MD, and DE with CN being a "statistical tie".

Looks like I might get to go to bed early tonight.
posted by vuron at 5:53 PM on April 26, 2016


>>I gather that some Clinton supporters flooded the pages with porn. Speaking as a Clinton supporter, for shame. I hope they are discovered and face consequences.
>Facebook is reporting (sorry, can't find the link) that the Sanders thing was a database error that has been fixed, and the porn thing is not true.

To set the record straight: this was a Facebook database error NOT involving skullduggery or porn planting. Thousands of Facebook groups went down for about 2 hours, including 8 pro-Sanders groups. Apparently though some trolls claimed credit for it the way some terrorist groups claim bombings they weren't involved with, for who knows what reason.

One troll named Jeremiah Watson posted on Reddit cheering on a compatriot's "shutdown" campaign as a "HillaryBro," but in the past 3 weeks he has presented himself as a Trump supporter and a Sanders supporter (setting up a GoFundMe for 'California for Bernie Sanders') in other discussions.

I can't wait for the pro-Sanders conspiracists to chill out a bit.
posted by msalt at 5:54 PM on April 26, 2016 [24 favorites]


Can't anyone remember the page we were on when we chose the wrong adventure? I want to start again.
posted by sallybrown at 5:54 PM on April 26, 2016 [15 favorites]


with CN being a "statistical tie".

We prefer CT; Conn. if you're nasty.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 5:57 PM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


Huh. Clinton won PA. I actually thought Sanders had a shot there.

I assume he'll win Rhode Island. Connecticut seems to be close.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:01 PM on April 26, 2016


>Huh. Clinton won PA. I actually thought Sanders had a shot there.

I spent the weekend in PA; State College was solidly Bernie, but to get to State College I had to pass through (based on radio evidence) some serious Christian hell-fire and Bible-thumping territory. I can't imagine people living there voting for a Socialist atheist. On the other hand, I can't imagine them voting for Hillary, either.
posted by acrasis at 6:10 PM on April 26, 2016


Trump University fraud case gong to trial, some talking head just told me. Hillary about to enter to the tune of 'Eye of the Tiger.'
posted by box at 6:12 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


AP has called Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania for Clinton; Rhode Island for Sanders. Connecticut still up in the air.

And all 5 states called for Trump unsurprisingly. Looks like over 50% in all 5, he's going to near-sweep delegates.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:16 PM on April 26, 2016


sallybrown: "Can't anyone remember the page we were on when we chose the wrong adventure? I want to start again."

November 7, 2000.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:19 PM on April 26, 2016 [27 favorites]


CT is swinging back and forth from Clinton to Sanders. Some of the remaining counties look like affluent suburbs, some more rural.
posted by zarq at 6:26 PM on April 26, 2016


Of course that year the majority of us voted for Gore, but the Supreme Court decided we needn't bother to count them all.
posted by humanfont at 6:27 PM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well it seems like Clinton is willing to offer the olive branch to Bernie supporters now that she's effectively the nominee. I guess it's easy to be conciliatory when you have a massive lead but she seems sincere in her desire to mend fences so that collectively we can prevent the rise of Emperor Trump.
posted by vuron at 6:27 PM on April 26, 2016


Rachel Maddow/MSNBC: Today's results put the nomination "inescapably out of reach" for Sanders.
posted by zarq at 6:29 PM on April 26, 2016


I have to say that the "Love Trumps Hate" messaging from Clinton is fucking brilliant. Easy to remember yet will constantly reinforce the point that Trump Loves Hate. Good luck pivoting to the center asshole.
posted by vuron at 6:32 PM on April 26, 2016 [29 favorites]


When is Clinton going to switch out "Fight Song" and replace it with "Who Runs the World (Girls)"?
posted by sallybrown at 6:32 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


MSNBC: There were 32 "Recommended by #NeverTrump" delegates in PA this evening. 27 are losing their elections. Big blow to #NeverTrump movement.
posted by zarq at 6:33 PM on April 26, 2016


As this goes on, the chance I have to hang around some friend or relative that voted for Trump increases. As it is, I plan on barking no no no with clear intent anytime politics come up. Because the alternative scares me.

I am so glad Bernie has been around, because it would be all Trump all the time on tv if he hadnt.
posted by cashman at 6:35 PM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


“If ever you hear of a ‘stop x’ movement…bet on ‘x’.” - Richard Nixon
posted by Justinian at 6:36 PM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


I still kinda like Fight Song. Yeah it's syrupy sweet pop but it seems to fit Clinton. Still I could totally see Clinton having a big rally with Queen Bey.
posted by vuron at 6:39 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Looks like Van Hollen will win the MD Dem Senate nod.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:40 PM on April 26, 2016


Clinton within 1.5% of Sanders in Connecticut with Hartford and Bridgeport ballots left. Regardless, this is looking like a draw.
posted by dw at 6:45 PM on April 26, 2016


Jeez these Hillary margins in Maryland are insane. How badly is she going to crush Sanders when DC finally gets to vote?
posted by vuron at 6:45 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ugh. My grandmother is dying, and I'm going there tomorrow to say goodbye. And I swear to God, I am going to find a way not to get in arguments with any of my relatives about Trump. Not even if they provoke me, which I think they probably will. I will change the subject. I will ask them for pickle recipes. I will beg them to tell me stories about the old days. (Actually, scratch that. Stories about the old days are going to lead straight back to Trump.) I am going to compose a list of safe topics that I can turn to when the topic gets anywhere within fifty yards of politics. I can't think of what those could be, but I will find them.

Pray for me, everyone.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:47 PM on April 26, 2016 [52 favorites]


Any percentages on voter turnout?
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:48 PM on April 26, 2016


"Can't anyone remember the page we were on when we chose the wrong adventure? I want to start again."

November 7, 2000.


Well, we actually chose a different adventure, but five folks in robes turned the book to the wrong page...
posted by zachlipton at 6:49 PM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


Pray for me, everyone.

Good luck. I know what works for me is to remind myself I'm a grownup and I can choose to leave when I want to. Also, that at times like these to remind everyone that the LAST thing anyone should do around Grandma is FIGHT because WHAT IF THE LAST THING SHE REMEMBERS ABOUT US IS WHAT ASSHOLES WE ARE OH SHE WILL HAUNT US FOREVER

It's how I've gotten through my brother's conceal carry gun lectures every damn Christmas.
posted by dw at 6:54 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


Good luck, ArbitraryandCapricious. Also, my condolences. :(
posted by zarq at 6:57 PM on April 26, 2016


People keep bringing up attacks but this election cycle is incredibly tame compared to 2008. Clinton went after Obama hard core. And he went after her. I have no problem with that. It is an election for president after all.

The point is that once one candidate can't win, it stops being a Presidential election. If Sanders is staying in to sway policy, then there's no point in personal attacks anymore.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:58 PM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump has his New Jersey lapdog with him on stage tonight. I wonder if he'll use him as a footstool.
posted by Justinian at 6:59 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


When is Clinton going to switch out "Fight Song" and replace it with "Who Runs the World (Girls)"?

oh my god. I already watch all her victory speeches white knuckled and excited about possibility but that would be amazing.
posted by zutalors! at 7:00 PM on April 26, 2016


Trump just walked up to the podium and started speaking, but the music wouldn't stop. Now his microphone is turned off.

Sidenote: when will politicians stop using "Start Me Up" as campaign music? It has the refrain "You make a grown man cry."
posted by zachlipton at 7:00 PM on April 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


On the bright side for Sanders he's 7-7 in Clinton counties with only Kentucky and Indiana remaining. Can he go 9-9 in Clinton counties? Faced with that sort of embarassment I think the only honorable thing should could do is to withdrawal from the race and go into exile on some island.
posted by vuron at 7:01 PM on April 26, 2016


Trump says that the Democrats have treated Sanders very badly and that he should run as an independent. Thanks, Trump. I know you have everyone's best interests at heart.
posted by Justinian at 7:01 PM on April 26, 2016 [22 favorites]


my financials were PHENOMINAL
posted by sallybrown at 7:03 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump just walked up to the podium and started speaking, but the music wouldn't stop. Now his microphone is turned off.

Most Presidential he's ever sounded.
posted by zarq at 7:03 PM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


Thanks guys. Sorry to make this about my morbid family drama. My grandmother is extremely elderly, and this is not unexpected. Anyway, I will probably have dispatches from the fascinating and terrifying political terrain that is my extended family. Maybe it could be interesting if I approached it with a sort of anthropological detachment.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:04 PM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


Did he hypnotize Christie? He looks stunned. Or maybe drugged.
posted by Go Banana at 7:08 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


CT is winner-take-all for the GOP winner who gets more than 50%. Trump is now at 59% with 75% of the counties reporting. They're projecting he'll remain above 50%.
posted by zarq at 7:08 PM on April 26, 2016


Kasich is having a pretty brilliant night. With a bunch of second place finishes he could pull within twenty delegates of third place Marco Rubio.
posted by peeedro at 7:14 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


It has the refrain "You make a grown man cry."

Well, sure, but it also has the line "you make a dead man come." Which, um, yeah.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:14 PM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


Jesus, Trump is a boring speaker. This entire speech is about how many primaries he's won.
posted by octothorpe at 7:15 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


The face Christie just made ("the cat who ate the canary") when Trump was asked whether he'd pick Christie as VP...there may already be a VP pick.

(I haven't forgotten about you, Omarosa)
posted by sallybrown at 7:17 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


octothorpe: He's selling a narrative.
posted by zarq at 7:17 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


"I'm like a very smart person" Trump
posted by zutalors! at 7:17 PM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


Go Banana: Did he hypnotize Christie? He looks stunned. Or maybe drugged.

Whoops, sorry -- just need to pull the string again. He'll totally come right back to life again: start talking and everything!
posted by wenestvedt at 7:19 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump says that the Democrats have treated Sanders very badly and that he should run as an independent. Thanks, Trump. I know you have everyone's best interests at heart.

The path to Trump victory is shockingly close:

Republican: Trump
Democrat: Clinton
Independent: Sanders
Green: Stein
Cool Guy Party: Chafee
Potato Guy Party: Webb
Butterfly Party: some butterflies
Centrist Party: the other Clinton, the male one
posted by Greg Nog at 7:19 PM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


The full quote as given by the New York Times: "I went to the best school, I'm like a very smart person," Trump says. "I'm going to represent our country with dignity, very well."

Now he's saying he'll do far more for woman than Clinton will ever do because he'll protect our country.
posted by zachlipton at 7:21 PM on April 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


why hasn't he said "like a dog" yet tonight?
posted by sallybrown at 7:21 PM on April 26, 2016


I think it would be cool if Trump, Bloomberg, Clinton, and Sanders all ran.
posted by cell divide at 7:21 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wow, Trump is throwing out bones to the BernieBros left and right. Pretty amazing.
posted by dougzilla at 7:23 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]




Now he's saying he'll do far more for woman than Clinton will ever do because he'll protect our country.


I really believe there are way too many women who care about other things than suburban terrorism fears to allow a Trump Presidency. That's the only way he wants to appeal to women, and that's based on a very outdated, xenophobic view of what women want.
posted by zutalors! at 7:24 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


118 bound GOP delegates at stake tonight. Current standings:

Trump 111
Kasich 5
Cruz 2

I don't know, corb, you may want to get that charity check made out.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:25 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


Is Crooked Hillary going to stick as The Official Trump Nickname? It doesn't seem as good as Lyin' Ted, imo.
posted by sallybrown at 7:27 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just...anyone who's been alive for the last 23 years is used to Hillary Clinton bashing, so no shocks there.
posted by zutalors! at 7:28 PM on April 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


I mean as she's said, there's just nothing out there that no one has called her. Someone on my Facebook called her a wooden puppet firehose spewing bullshit and it's like, yeah, ok let's add that one on the pile, sure.
posted by zutalors! at 7:29 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


Is it still Tuesday? It feels like he's been talking for a long time.
posted by zarq at 7:29 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maryland results are trickling in: Federal / Baltimore City

As previously reported, Clinton is crushing Sanders. This was predicted ages ago, but it still leaves me feeling somewhat like Pauline Kael (apocryphally) upon the reelection of Richard Nixon.

Trump has more votes than Cruz and Kasich combined. Ben Carson has almost three times the votes of Jeb Bush.

Get ready for Senator Chris Van Hollen. I feel sorry for Donna Edwards, but she fought a good fight and I'm sure she'll do an excellent job wherever she ends up next. Interestingly, it looks like her Congressional seat will be filled by former Lieutenant Governor and failed gubernatorial candidate Anthony Brown.

It looks like a good night for the Congressional incumbents whose names I recognize. The ever-popular Elijah Cummings is in no danger, not that anyone ever expected him to be.

In the city, Catherine Pugh appears to have a healthy lead over Sheila Dixon for the mayoralty. This is good, because we really didn't need a sequel to that.

Incumbent City Council President Bernard "Jack" Young has fended off a challenge from Kim Trueheart, but I'm sure she'll continue to be a progressive thorn in his side just as she has been for years.

Finally, and sadly, things aren't looking very good for my man Christopher Ervin in his run for City Council. He's a distant third behind suspiciously clean-cut businessman Isaac "Yitzy" Schleifer (probably due to Schleifer's inescapable barrage of lawn signs and loudspeaker announcements outside the polling place) and hand-picked establishment successor Betsy Gardner. That's a damn shame. I'm friends with him on Facebook, so maybe I'll offer to buy him a drink.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:32 PM on April 26, 2016


Holy cow. MSNBC projecting Clinton took CT. 50-48%. Still very close.
posted by zarq at 7:32 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Current estimates for delegates:
Clinton: 2091
Sanders: 1267
posted by zarq at 7:33 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump's last statement:
The only thing Clinton has going for her is the woman card.
If she were a man, she wouldn't get 5%.
Women don't like her.
posted by zarq at 7:35 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


I converse little with Trump voters (not much political talk around me and my most outspoken RightWingWacko acquaintance believes he's running to get Hillary elected) but my approach is to ask any Trump-eters if they've ever bought any Trump-branded products before. Results: one good review of a Trump hotel "but a little overpriced", one bad review of Trump Water "and a little overpriced", and one "uh, no, nothing". Easy to change the subject after that; try to avoid a "Make America Overpriced" wisecrack.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:37 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


DecisionDesk calls PA Senate for McGinty.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:37 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Telling women what they think" is a great strategy and I hope he pursues it in the months to come
posted by theodolite at 7:37 PM on April 26, 2016 [22 favorites]


I mean as she's said, there's just nothing out there that no one has called her. Someone on my Facebook called her a wooden puppet firehose spewing bullshit and it's like, yeah, ok let's add that one on the pile, sure.

I guess you go with what you've got, but it still seems an odd rallying cry.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:38 PM on April 26, 2016


AP, NBC, and ABC call Connecticut for Clinton.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:40 PM on April 26, 2016


I hope misogyny loses so hard this election. Like, every time Trump makes an obviously sexist remark, Clinton's poll numbers go up. Probably won't work for the subtler statements or microaggressions, but I don't think Trump is really capable of that level of nuance.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:41 PM on April 26, 2016 [16 favorites]


I wish we could dispel with the notion that disadvantaged people get special cards that help them out in life. I'm a woman of color and don't have any fucking cards. That's the POINT.
posted by zutalors! at 7:42 PM on April 26, 2016 [35 favorites]


I caught a snippet the other day of an anti-Trump ad that focuses on how he's said terrible things about women ("he would say that about your wife or daughter").... anybody else seen that one, do you know who it's by? I was pleased that somebody thought that would be an effective attack on him.
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:43 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


LobsterMitten, that was actually by a Republican Super PAC! If they started making those, like, months ago, and going after Trump then, maybe they wouldn't be in this mess.
posted by schroedinger at 7:45 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's by a conservative anti Trump Super PAC. It's a good ad in some ways but the way it focuses on just talking to men outs it as a conservative thing.
posted by zutalors! at 7:45 PM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah, that was the feeling I had from it - so interesting, thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:45 PM on April 26, 2016


I wish we could dispel with the notion that disadvantaged people get special cards that help them out in life.

Nice try, Marco, but you had your shot.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:47 PM on April 26, 2016


About that ad:

It was paid for and distributed by the Our Principles PAC, a group that appears to have been organized merely to stop Trump. According to Factcheck.org, the PAC was formed in January 2016 and a Republican strategist with ties to Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign. Our Principles PAC gets most of its funding from Marlene Ricketts, wife of TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts.
posted by zarq at 7:48 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


will do more to reject big donors/Super PAC money

Just to note that because of the way superpacs work, you can't reject their money. Because they don't give you any; superpacs work by doing their own things that benefit you, equivalently, hurt your opponent. The most you can do is not have one.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:49 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


I feel like at some point, if there isn't already, there will be some website where you just type in your name, or connect to FB, and it'll have negative Donald Trump quotes about you.

This from his attacking Lena Dunham today. How does he have time for all this?
posted by zutalors! at 7:49 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


So Trump is going hard and heavy with the mansplaining. How long before he says something like Bill should've traded Hillary in for a younger model or goes ape shit on Lena Dunham and pulls out some nasty fatshaming crap.

I seems like he's always one bad news cycle away from self-immolation.
posted by vuron at 7:53 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


You seem to think saying those things would affect his chances of winning the primary. I agree with you. But I think they would improve his chances and you seem to believe the opposite.
posted by Justinian at 7:54 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


There had been reports that Trump was going to change his style and tone things down, but tonight put an end to that. He can clearly annihilate his opponents the way he's operating just fine.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:56 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ohh he'll either win or lose the nomination regardless of that shit but he's given Hillary so many choice soundbites to run endless ads against him that I'm just wondering when he goes completely overboard when tons of Hillary proxies start using their own media presence to slam him relentlessly.
posted by vuron at 7:57 PM on April 26, 2016


Yeah, I think the same kind of statements can help Trump in the primary and hurt him in the general.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:00 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


He's given his GOP opponents just as many soundbites. The mistake is assuming the soundbites matter.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:01 PM on April 26, 2016


we haven't even seen whatever Obama is going to bring to this yet. His popularity is really high right now, despite what the Republicans and Sanders people seem to be saying. I think it'll be interesting.
posted by zutalors! at 8:01 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


unfortunately hillary has given him a bunch of choice soundbites too and trump doesn't give a fuck. he will try to burn the whole house down. i think that we are about to enter the gutter's gutter of politics.
posted by futz at 8:04 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maddow just pointed out that Trump already has a woman problem, and attacking Clinton -- by saying her success is solely due to a sort of affirmative action, and that her resume as a two-term Senator and Secretary of State leaves her unqualified to be President -- will hurt him in the general.
posted by zarq at 8:06 PM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump managed to get actual Presidential candidates to argue over dick size during a debate. I predict the quantity of mud slung in the general if he wins the nomination will be beyond comprehension.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:07 PM on April 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


Right but Hillary Clinton for a variety of reasons is not going to be pulled in to a dick size contest. One of those reasons is that she has gotten more overall votes than anyone else this cycle.
posted by zutalors! at 8:09 PM on April 26, 2016 [26 favorites]


Oh, and Shapiro got the PA Dem nod for AG. So both PA candidates Obama endorsed won the primary.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:11 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


true zutalors! but trump will go there and it won't hurt him with his hardcore supporters. this is unchartered territory.
posted by futz at 8:11 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump's hardcore supporters are a minority of the electorate.
posted by zutalors! at 8:13 PM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


The eyeroll from Mary Pat Christie as Trump discusses Clinton's "woman's card."
posted by zachlipton at 8:13 PM on April 26, 2016 [15 favorites]


Trump's hardcore supporters are a minority of the electorate.

I know. Still going to get ugly.
posted by futz at 8:16 PM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sounds like Bernie is pivoting from trying to win to influencing policy.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:16 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Good. I think Sanders is a better, smarter person than his surrogates and have faith in him that he's not a Nader type against the Democrats.
posted by zutalors! at 8:18 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sounds like Bernie is pivoting from trying to win to influencing policy.

Awesome. That's the candidate I voted for this morning. I hope he continues to push her left, and I hope people keep voting for him as a signal to her that she's going to need his voters in November.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:20 PM on April 26, 2016 [17 favorites]


I wish we could dispel with the notion that disadvantaged people get special cards that help them out in life.
I'm disabled and somewhat-asset-less but my White Cis Male Card has helped me out more often than any other card in my wallet. (And any guy who thinks it hasn't helped him, it's because he pulled out the Asshole Card by mistake.)

Of course, Trump has used his Asshole Card more than almost every man in the U.S.ofA. in the last 30 years. At first, it was his family's money that saved him, then people who they were smarter than him giving him attention so they could laugh under their breath at him, and finally, after all these years in the public eye (and with the help of Mark Burnett's skillful editing on 'The Apprentice') he became America's "but he's OUR Asshole". And with this election giving us so many "serious candidates who are just a joke", he was uniquely qualified to be an "honest joke candidate" and blasted his way to the top.

And the one reason Hollywood's semi-secret 'Friends of Abe' conservatives club disbanded is that every half-way famous member looked at each other and thought "DAMNIT, any one of us could have done that and done it better!!"

YOWV: Your Opinion WILL Vary.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:21 PM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


I'm disabled and somewhat-asset-less but my White Cis Male Card has helped me out more often than any other card in my wallet. (And any guy who thinks it hasn't helped him, it's because he pulled out the Asshole Card by mistake.)

Thanks for this. I honestly wish we could stop talking about the woman card or race card like it's anything near as powerful as the White Cis Male Card.
posted by zutalors! at 8:23 PM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


The eyeroll from Mary Pat Christie as Trump discusses Clinton's "woman's card."

middle fingers up
throw them hands high
wave em in his face
tell him boy, bye
tell him boy, bye
boy, bye
posted by sallybrown at 8:30 PM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Arizona's presidential primary

“Glitches are always something that we need to be wary of, and we need to work hard, and we need to fix them going forward,” the judge explained. “But they don’t rise to the level of fraud.”
posted by futz at 8:33 PM on April 26, 2016


I really hope Clinton will do the right thing and choose a person of color as her VP nominee. I can't see any immediate electoral incentive for her doing so given the way things stand, so I hope she will surpass my expectation and find the conviction to do this.
posted by threeants at 8:36 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Don't worry, the "deal" is already falling apart.

Only the GOP could collude to lose.

Part of your solution for dysfunctional government is to expand our lower house to 4350 members? I'm not sure you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Lower Lower House. Tricameral.
posted by klangklangston at 8:37 PM on April 26, 2016


Lower Lower House. Tricameral.

Really why not just have Nine Circles of the House?
posted by threeants at 8:40 PM on April 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


You know, I've been right about the Trump campaign more than usual. I even kind of predicted the general arc of his candidacy as a sort of "Joaquin Phoenix/Stephen Colbert" type that points out corruption with a flippant comment I made in 2012.

But, it's very disheartening to be right about something like this, and I really would be happy to have been completely wrong up to now.
posted by FJT at 8:42 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]




Lower Lower House. Tricameral.

In 2019 the 28th Amendment creates the Chamber of Corporations, a third house of Congress where representatives are assigned to corporations domiciled in the US per each ten billion dollars of revenue, adjusted at the end of each fiscal year.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:46 PM on April 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


klangklangston: "Lower Lower House. Tricameral."

Of course, the Estates General was composed of three parts. And Sweden's Riksdag of the Estates had *four* estates.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:48 PM on April 26, 2016


homunculus: "What Began at Occupy Wall Street Is Reverberating in Today's Democratic Primary - But it's happening on a different part of the ballot that doesn't get enough coverage."

I think it's exciting that we're seeing more progressive folks running. But worth noting that:

The party must have room for Donna Edwards, Joe Sestak, and John Fetterman, and for their constituents and supporters.

All three of those people lost.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:53 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


The eyeroll from Mary Pat Christie as Trump discusses Clinton's "woman's card."

If that's Melania directly behind him I think her body language is equally apalled. She literally looks away.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 8:54 PM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm just waiting for the rest of the midwest to vote so I can hear people from the coasts try to explain how the flyover states are the most racist and misogynistic place in America after we're the only places not to vote Trump in the primary, and PA, NY, CO and MA are about the strongest Trump bastions in the land. It's not like Ted Cruz isn't a racist misogynist, just that I'm going to take coastal joking about us backwards hicks with even more of a side-eye, since our hicks seem a little less on board with extreme vocal racism than the ones living in ya'lls backyard.
posted by neonrev at 8:59 PM on April 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


Question from Canada re Bernie's policy pressure direction...
Is the democratic convention a policy convention as well as a leadership convention, and do policies get passed be the members... I.e. is it the case that $15 min wage could become the official democratic platform at the convention?
posted by chapps at 9:06 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sure, it well may be a plank in the platform; but platforms in the US are basically a wishlist. They're not as directly actionable as Canadian (or other Westminster-system election packages) are, since our checks-and-balances system makes it much more unlikely that one party will have a firm grip on the sausage-making process.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:12 PM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


If that's Melania directly behind him I think her body language is equally apalled. She literally looks away.

It's not Melania Trump. I'm not sure who it is.
posted by Justinian at 9:13 PM on April 26, 2016


Basically we always have minority governments with free votes on everything. Even in this relatively polarized, partisan climate, individual House members and Senators have a lot more pull than individual MPs do.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:15 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


> In 2019 the 28th Amendment creates the Chamber of Corporations, ...

Deep in the bowels of the American Enterprise Institute, a man in a Brooks Brothers suite sits up, his nose twitches and the closely-trimmed hairs on the back of neck stand. Somewhere in the country a new conservative idea has been born, and his finely tuned senses coupled to his unconscious reptile brain know it. It will take a while to bring the idea forward into his conscious mind and to track it down and master it, but he knows that this is more than just another idea. Carefully guarded, nurtured, and brought to maturity, it's not just an idea, it's his golden child, his ticket to the big time, the rough beast he can ride to the front ranks of conservative punditry. It will be his life and it will reward him well.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:23 PM on April 26, 2016 [19 favorites]


but platforms in the US are basically a wishlist.

They aren't even a wish list. Immediately after the conventions, the party platforms are shoved into a drawer never to be spoken of again. And because they are of so little consequence, they are fought over most bitterly.

The only platforms that matter are the ones created independently by the Presidential candidates. All 538 congressional candidates ignore their official party platforms and go their own way like a herd of cats.
posted by JackFlash at 9:24 PM on April 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


Thanks!
posted by chapps at 9:24 PM on April 26, 2016


Fun fact: 304 counties voted tonight. Cruz hit 30% in one (1) of them.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:33 PM on April 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


All three of those people lost.

On the other hand, Jamie Raskin's win in MD-8 is exciting for leftists.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:36 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


@StopTrumpPAC
And somewhere far away, from within God's seamless veil of blue, a fatherly voice whispers, "Why my friends, why?"

posted by Drinky Die at 9:38 PM on April 26, 2016


[...] and PA, NY, CO and MA are about the strongest Trump bastions in the land.

CT, guys...
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 9:40 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


I.e. is it the case that $15 min wage could become the official democratic platform at the convention?

Short answer:

Yeah, but that doesn't matter. The only people who will care what's in the party platform are the people writing it at the convention and researchers years or decades from now.

Better answer:

Sorry, you just inserted the quarter for the "Party organization stuff in the US" and selected the option for "Stuff Canadians often have trouble really grokking about American politics."

You are Canadian, and so are likely thinking about platforms and so on in the context of Canadian federal elections, where there is basically a single unified party organization with a single leader and whose members are reasonably expected to do what the platform says. Yes I know that the reality is more complex than that. Because that single party organization controls nominations for Parliament and if you piss off your party leaders by voting against the platform, you find yourself outside the party.

But none of that is true in the US context.

First, there is no single party organization that nominates at the federal level. The convention, which is more or less interchangeable with the DNC (kinda (not really (but fuck it close enough))) nominates the presidential and VP candidates... and that's it. There are other federal party organizations -- the DCCC and DSCC which deal with the House and Senate respectively -- but they are NOT NOT NOT under the control of the DNC. And, more to the point, none of the DNC, DCCC, or DSCC nominate congressional candidates -- those are nominated by state party organizations, who are *also* not under the control of the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, or anyone except their own membership (considered broadly).

So anyway, the DNC will issue a platform that is the national Democratic platform. The DCCC and DSCC won't, but I suppose could if they really wanted to, and theirs could say whatever they want and have almost as good a claim to being a national party platform as the DNC one. And the state parties can issue whatever platforms they want using whatever measures it pleases them to use, though some aspects of this are now indirectly controlled through the DNC.

So, yeah, the convention can put a $15 minimum wage in the platform. And Clinton can ignore that and campaign on a $12 minimum wage and the DNC can't do jack shit about it. And the DSCC and DCCC could, if they really wanted to, create a platform with a $24 minimum wage, and some state's Democratic party could put the complete abolition of any minimum wage in their platform while another state calls for the total expropriation and redistribution of all income over $50K.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:50 PM on April 26, 2016 [13 favorites]


(And of course, since the Republicans are very likely to keep the House, there won't be any minimum wage change of any kind most likely, so the $12 vs $15 thing is not in practice going to matter....)
posted by thefoxgod at 9:58 PM on April 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Thanks! I was surprised by the Bernie policy push plan because it seemed so familiar as a Canadian to run just to push a platform, or maybe in hopes of getting in cabinet by raising your profile, but not something I'm not used to to seeing in the US. Now I know a bit more about why!
posted by chapps at 10:24 PM on April 26, 2016


don't know, corb, you may want to get that charity check made out.

I still have hope, but if and when it runs out, that somebody is winning from this is going to be all that consoles me. This is disheartening as hell.
posted by corb at 10:29 PM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump managed to get actual Presidential candidates to argue over dick size during a debate. I predict the quantity of mud slung in the general if he wins the nomination will be beyond comprehension.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the first president election where a woman is the front runner has the highest ratio of macho posturing and (almost literal) dick-swinging.

The optimist in me thinks this will end up like the brilliant satirical hockey movie Slapshot -- a race to the crass macho fighty bottom overwhelmed in the end by a dramatic non-violent gesture from the one person who refuses to play along.
posted by msalt at 10:32 PM on April 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


PA hasn't counted absentee ballots or provisional ballots yet. Wonder if that would make a difference between Clinton and sanders bc it's pretty close.

Also I'm sorry about trump but in PA we like to joke we're Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in the middle.

(omg stupid autocorrect keeps taking h off of Pittsburgh. Grr)
posted by sio42 at 10:40 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Tje most they could realistically do is shift a delegate ir two to Sanders.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:45 PM on April 26, 2016


It's by a conservative anti Trump Super PAC. It's a good ad in some ways but the way it focuses on just talking to men outs it as a conservative thing.

Ah interesting, thanks for pointing that out, zulators! I hadn't picked up on it when I saw the ad because it's all women talking the whole time, so when women say at the end "This is how Trump talks about our mothers, our sisters, our daughters," it came across to me as solidarity. However, the way (too many) men will hear that will accord with their sexist/patriarchal views, so the ad kinda manages to have it both ways. Clever!
posted by torticat at 10:52 PM on April 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't think it's a coincidence that the first president election where a woman is the front runner has the highest ratio of macho posturing and (almost literal) dick-swinging.

yes there has been this undercurrent of misogyny running through the whole Republican primary; it's not just Trump. The other candidates might not have made the same kind of overtly sexist comments that Trump does, but they (Cruz and Rubio at least) sure did get in the mud with him acting as if dick size or macho-ness has any relevance to leadership ability. The whole wife-bashing/wife-defending thing was so gross. I wish Ted had let Heidi get in there herself and tell Trump to "go to hell" but of course doing it himself appeals to his crowd, who think that kind of manly protectiveness is a plus.
posted by torticat at 11:03 PM on April 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


The first time I wondered at something being not quite right with Trump’s brain was during the first debate in August 2015 when Trump said “We need brain in this country to turn it around.” Even my 10-year-old son noted that Trump had suggested we need intelligence in government in a really stupid way. But it was more than stupid; it was ungrammatical. It wasn’t simply a basic use of language; it lacked the grammar structure that even a third grader has readily available.
Maybe Donald Trump really has lost his mind: What if the GOP front runner isn't crazy but simply unwell? (Sophia A. McClennen, Salon).
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:29 AM on April 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Now there'd be an interesting political ad: a doctor listing and explaining the symptoms of dementia intercut with relevant Trump clips and quotations.
posted by rifflesby at 2:14 AM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


That would certainly increase his popularity among Ronald Reagan fans (yes, I went there).
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:50 AM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Let us please not continue or encourage diagnosis over the Internet and all the shittiness that it entails.
posted by Etrigan at 2:58 AM on April 27, 2016 [14 favorites]


or maybe he had been listening to Nicki Minaj: "Give me brain like N.Y.U."
posted by angrycat at 3:28 AM on April 27, 2016


Meanwhile, Cruz has already moved on to Indiana, where at a rally in a high school gym he referred to a "basketball ring."

@JenniferJJacobs: "I miss the time when Cruz referring to a basketball hoop as a 'basketball ring' would have been a gaffe," GOP analyst texts me.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:51 AM on April 27, 2016 [8 favorites]


"Can't anyone remember the page we were on when we chose the wrong adventure? I want to start again."

November 7, 2000.


Yeah that opens a less worse story, but if you go back to page November 1980 you can get the adventure with a moonbase and flying cars.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:54 AM on April 27, 2016 [16 favorites]


My mother, who spent most of my life as an overworked, underpaid political science professor, gave me an American political education rooted in two simple principles.

The first was that it takes moral imagination and courage to name, redress and reckon with the designed structural abuse of poor black Americans. The second: that all “electable” presidential candidates will lack the moral imagination and courage to name, repair and reckon with the structural abuse of poor black Americans.

...

One of the problems with the Clinton-era welfare reform Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, was that it excluded support for children – disproportionately poor, black children, my mother observed. “They’re still suffering. A lot of really intelligent people told the Clintons this would happen. I’m just not sure that they cared.” She’s still on track to win black voters by a huge margin. Pandering to black American voters while delivering anti-black policy to racist white Americans is something both Clintons ... do extremely well.

As shameful as I find Hillary Clinton and her supposedly left-leaning supporters, though, I’m angriest at the cowardice of Bernie Sanders. Sanders has been completely ineffectual at publicly holding Clinton responsible for her role in engineered American racial terror.
Hillary Clinton Isn't Progressive: She's Just the Lesser Evil in the General Election (Kiese Laymon, Guardian).
posted by Sonny Jim at 4:31 AM on April 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


Madly in love with Clinton's response to the "woman card" nonsense. Deal me in?! Come on, Trump, that was an easy one and you set it up for her perfectly. If this is a preview of the general, I'm going to start popping my popcorn now.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:24 AM on April 27, 2016 [13 favorites]


Meatbomb: "Yeah that opens a less worse story, but if you go back to page November 1980 you can get the adventure with a moonbase and flying cars."

Eh. Literal flying cars aside, I think that's a little too "great man" theory for me. Reagan was standard bearer for a movement. I think even if Carter had squeaked out a win (pet theory: if Operation Eagle Claw had been successful, he would have won), I still think you would seen a rising tide of conservatism, maybe delayed but not denied. Reagan was a skillful and charismatic operator, but he wasn't an indispensable man.

W, on the other hand, didn't particularly embody a movement other than "not a Democrat this time" and came on at one of the major juncture points in recent history. A President Gore would not have reacted to a September 11 in the same way, and I think we'd be in a significantly different position today.

Sept 11 itself might not have happened in quite the same way - presumably, Gore would have paid more attention to the Aug 6 PDB than W did - but I do think an attack of similar size and impact would still have been quite likely.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:46 AM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


Rumor has it that Janet Yellen is trying to prevent a recession before the election happens to prevent a Trump presidency, in part by working to prevent a hard landing in China that would spread to the US (background).
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:47 AM on April 27, 2016


sio42: "PA hasn't counted absentee ballots or provisional ballots yet. Wonder if that would make a difference between Clinton and sanders bc it's pretty close. "

Come on now, this is silly. With 98.78% reporting, Sanders trails by about 11 points, almost 200,000 votes. He's not going to win PA.

Also, PA doesn't do any early voting. You can get an absentee ballot, but it has to be for cause - you're going to be traveling or something similar. So you don't get all that many of them.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:52 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty sure that Yellen would be trying to avoid a recession even were Trump not running, given that the health of the national economy is kind of her balliwick.
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:56 AM on April 27, 2016 [19 favorites]


a recession before the election happens

oh god that is the nightmare scenario
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:56 AM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm just waiting for the rest of the midwest to vote so I can hear people from the coasts try to explain how the flyover states are the most racist and misogynistic place in America

Congrats on painting the coasts as the land of scapegoating holier-than-thou assholes!
posted by Greg Nog at 6:08 AM on April 27, 2016 [15 favorites]


So trump is making inroads among the college educated apparently wtf America
posted by angrycat at 6:38 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Women Everywhere Wonder Where Their ‘Woman Card’ Is After Trump’s Clinton Diss
“Will my #womancard earn me frequent flyer miles?”
"Ladies, the #womancard gives you a 21% discount on your salary."
"If women have the woman card, and minorities have the race card, what do racist white men get? The Trump card."

posted by zarq at 6:42 AM on April 27, 2016 [36 favorites]


Maybe Donald Trump really has lost his mind: What if the GOP front runner isn't crazy but simply unwell? (Sophia A. McClennen, Salon).

CALLED IT!

posted by leotrotsky at 6:42 AM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm pretty sure that Yellen would be trying to avoid a recession even were Trump not running, given that the health of the national economy is kind of her balliwick.

Perhaps, but it's not as though the opposite hasn't happened before (Volcker Shock being a case in point). The point is that, if this rumor is true, any wiggle room (to say nothing of dramatically raising interest rates) is off the table, for electoral reasons.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:24 AM on April 27, 2016


yes there has been this undercurrent of misogyny running through the whole Republican primary;

"undercurrent?" Hating women is a main talking point.
posted by agregoli at 7:26 AM on April 27, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump's just giving the people what the people want.

Yesterday my mother-in-law was confronted outside of her polling place by a Trump supporter who smelled of booze and was walking up to people outside of their vehicles and telling them they should vote Trump. He said he was a veteran, and that Trump would protect veterans by using them to destroy ISIS "within a year." (Shit, why didn't Obama think of that?)

This is in a state where Trump was basically a slam-dunk to win already, but nonetheless, something possessed this asshole to spend his time harassing people outside a polling place. I don't know that he was doing it exclusively to unaccompanied women, but he had just done the same thing to another woman, who told him he wasn't allowed to be harassing people outside a polling place, which might not technically be true, as I don't think he was technically breaking any laws given the distance from the polling place and the fact that he wasn't impeding her progress or anything... But shit, if this is what it's like for a barely competitive primary, I'm dreading what it's going to be like in November.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:38 AM on April 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Perhaps, but it's not as though the opposite hasn't happened before (Volcker Shock being a case in point).

Clearly the current economic situation is vastly different than it was in 1980. It's fine to question whether Volcker's actions were the appropriate response to inflation of near 15%, but the chance that Yellen would engineer a recession is less than zero.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:43 AM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


In state after state, strong GOP support for Trump's Muslim proposal
What was once furious Republican opposition to Donald Trump's proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the U.S. has turned to virtual silence in the face of widespread GOP voter approval.

Exit polls from the nation's biggest Republican primaries show impressive majority support for Trump's proposal. In the latest example, in Pennsylvania Tuesday, 69 percent of GOP voters said they support "temporarily banning Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the U.S." In New York last week, the number was 68 percent.

In Wisconsin, 69 percent supported Trump's idea. In Florida, 64 percent. Georgia, 68 percent. Ohio, 65 percent. Michigan, 63 percent. New Hampshire, 65 percent. Texas, 67 percent.

Huge majorities across the country in states won by Trump and states won by Ted Cruz — and even the one state won by John Kasich. If those exit polls, measuring the opinions of tens of thousands of people, are correct, the temporary foreign Muslim ban has become a Republican staple.
Not that it should come as any sort of surprise, but we're seeing that it's not just Trump anymore. The constant vitriol aimed at LGBT people, women, PoC, and generalized Islamophobia from all of the GOP candidates (including "palling around" with people who want members of those groups dead or no better than 2nd-class citizens) is going to end in violence no matter who the candidate is.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:49 AM on April 27, 2016 [9 favorites]


> 69 percent of GOP voters said they support "temporarily banning Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the U.S." In New York last week, the number was 68 percent.

Ah, my fellow Americans, a nation of immigrants with a generous spirit.
posted by RedOrGreen at 7:52 AM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump's just giving the people what the people want.

If lust and hate is the candy
if blood and love tastes so sweet
then we give 'em what they want
Hey, hey, give 'em what they want
posted by Chrysostom at 7:53 AM on April 27, 2016 [8 favorites]


Sanders been raising more in donations that Clinton, and outspending her on ad buys. Since he seems to have conceded that winning the nomination will be extremely difficult and is unlikely to happen, what happens in California now? If Sanders' donations dry up, will he still have enough cash on hand to blanket the state in ads the way he did in New York? California reportedly has seen large numbers of newly registered, under-29 voters. Will they vote for him if he has only a minuscule chance of winning? Or vote at all?
posted by zarq at 7:54 AM on April 27, 2016




...confronted outside of her polling place by a Trump supporter who smelled of booze....

Another good reason to go with early, mail or absentee voting. (I know not all voters have the luxury available in their state.) With polling places seemingly a half a step away from what one sees on Black Friday (not to mention the long waits), physically going to vote holds no appeal to me.
posted by lampshade at 8:02 AM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Question - if Sanders still has donation money in the bank when he gets to the convention, what happens to that money (assuming he doesn't win)? I'm asking both legally and theoretically, I guess...
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:05 AM on April 27, 2016


Bring On A Military Coup Backed by Business Interests
Normal Americans demand change, and they know that change will have to come from outside the traditional two-party system. Donald Trump may inspire crowds of Normal Americans with his bold talk of shaking up Washington, but his over-the-top tone won’t fly with other business leaders, and he hasn’t shown the dignity necessary to win over the military brass. Bernie Sanders may promise a “revolution,” but soaking America’s job creators is no way to encourage the sort of bottom-up innovation this country really needs.

I appreciated my friend Jim VandeHei’s compelling call for a third-party candidate from “outside the political system” who could “exploit the fear factor,” but he doesn’t go far enough. It’s time for some real change you can believe in: After Obama’s term in office is up (or even before), the United States Armed Forces, backed by America’s most innovative entrepreneurs, should stage a coup d’état.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:16 AM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump has released america's id
posted by angrycat at 8:17 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]




the strict rule is: No Personal Use
posted by numaner at 8:19 AM on April 27, 2016


Very early on in this election, a cousin added me to a Sanders Facebook group. I never participated much, but I liked seeing the posts in my newsfeed, especially as his campaign went from "tilting at windmills" to "holy shit he might win this thing." Buuuut now the group has taken a sharp turn toward the conspiracy theory crap and is nothing but talk about how Clinton is stealing the election but Sanders can totally still win, it's just that the MEDIA wants you to think otherwise, and I really keep wanting to say something but I know there's no point and just, ugh
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:26 AM on April 27, 2016 [14 favorites]


lampshade: "Another good reason to go with early, mail or absentee voting. (I know not all voters have the luxury available in their state.) With polling places seemingly a half a step away from what one sees on Black Friday (not to mention the long waits), physically going to vote holds no appeal to me."

I guess it's different in different places but our polling place is always very friendly and calm. It's in the common room of a senior tower in the neighborhood and entirely staffed by little old ladies.
Sweet little old ladies who can't hear a word you say and are too blind to read the index card that you need to vote with but it's still a welcoming place. I've had to wait for about ten minutes during presidential elections but never more than that.

It's not the fact that you have to go to a polling place, it's how well they're funded and run that matters.
posted by octothorpe at 8:32 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bring On A Military Coup Backed by Business Interests

I...it says something about the tenor of the times that I'm still not sure that's actually sarcasm.
posted by happyroach at 8:35 AM on April 27, 2016 [12 favorites]


Very early on in this election, a cousin added me to a Sanders Facebook group. I never participated much, but I liked seeing the posts in my newsfeed, especially as his campaign went from "tilting at windmills" to "holy shit he might win this thing." Buuuut now the group has taken a sharp turn toward the conspiracy theory crap and is nothing but talk about how Clinton is stealing the election but Sanders can totally still win, it's just that the MEDIA wants you to think otherwise, and I really keep wanting to say something but I know there's no point and just, ugh

Same with the Sanders reddit. It's pretty depressing.

Still, glad to hear he'll continue to run until the convention because I feel like his presence forces Clinton and the general conversation left. That he made it this far--and that my socialist political leanings aren't nearly as weird as I'd previously thought--remains inspiring to me.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:38 AM on April 27, 2016 [16 favorites]


I...it says something about the tenor of the times that I'm still not sure that's actually sarcasm.

Tomorrow on Pando Daily: Nick Denton's Gawker says its support for a military coup backed by big business was a joke ... but was it really? Our big cork board with colored strings and polaroids suggests it was real
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:42 AM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


it's how well they're funded and run that matters.

Very true. Where I live it is all very civil and calm. So should I miss getting an early ballot, I know I am fortunate not to live in one of those '5 hour wait time' areas and voting that day won't be all that bad.

I still do absentee vote though. Along with the convenience of mailing, I get a full paper ballot with all the candidates listed. So I get the opportunity to consider everyone with my computer in front of me to research and do it on my own schedule.
posted by lampshade at 8:46 AM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


it says something about the tenor of the times that I'm still not sure that's actually sarcasm.

It says something about the times that if Trump looked like he were going to win the whole shebang, it might actually be tempting.
posted by corb at 8:56 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


It says something about the times that if Trump looked like he were going to win the whole shebang, it might actually be tempting.

Hell no. Trump might fuck a bunch of shit up but he wouldn't LITERALLY run the Constitution through a paper shredder, if only because our government is currently too deadlocked to ever allow it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:23 AM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


I enjoyed our caucus, and I used to enjoy in person voting at our local elementary school before we went to mail in ballots. Not least because the elementary school polling place always had a bake sale going on just outside it. But as I noted a little earlier in this thread, the caucus was fundamentally anti democratic because most voters, particularly those who work or lack transportation or don't have a whole morning to burn, can't get there. And it is also much easier for people to vote by mail . . . they have much more time, they need not drive anywhere, and there is no waiting at all. It's also easier to look at reference materials like voter's pamphlets and online sites if voting by mail.

Charming as the old ways have been for many of us, I think this election cycle in particular has highlighted how deeply flawed our voting system is across the U.S. The right to vote federally is a key constitutional guarantee, and it is far too burdened. I want Clinton and down ballot Ds to start talking soon about basic good government measures to make voting accessible and easy and convenient for every citizen.
posted by bearwife at 9:31 AM on April 27, 2016


Hell no. Trump might fuck a bunch of shit up but he wouldn't LITERALLY run the Constitution through a paper shredder, if only because our government is currently too deadlocked to ever allow it.

The government? Fuck no. Anyone who want to make a totalitarian state out of the US would require military support. There's no way in hell the Joint Chiefs of Staff would go along with Trump.
posted by Talez at 9:34 AM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Looks like Cruz is about to name Fiorina his running mate.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:39 AM on April 27, 2016


Looks like Cruz is about to name Fiorina his running mate.

That'll be the final nail in his coffin.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:41 AM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump At War - "How The Military Is Preparing For A Very Different Kind Of Commander-In-Chief"

I'm thinking of another TRUMP post, should I just put it here?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:42 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


if you put nails in his coffin, how is he going to get out to feed at night?

oh god I'm going to miss making Cruz jokes
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:43 AM on April 27, 2016 [31 favorites]


On the other hand, Jamie Raskin's win in MD-8 is exciting for leftists.

He's pretty great. When we put together a photo walk protest over Downtown Silver Spring's behavior (on the land they were leasing from the county for a dollar) he was the only politician to show up. We were cynical enough to joke that he'd come to the opening of an envelope, but really that's what shows an engaged politician - someone willing to show up and say some words about an issue that voters care about.
posted by phearlez at 9:44 AM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


I just wanted to toss in that I was so impressed that Sen. Sanders congratulated Hillary on her wins last night and said he was campaigning on the issues and to strengthen the platform moving forward. As usual, the rhetoric from his campaign staff has been a lot less conciliatory but I think Sanders is doing what I hoped . . . . shifting his focus to allow voters to have their say, then aiming to strengthen the D party for a united fight against Trump.

I also really hope that the Sanders campaign SOON begins to plan how to share the wealth with down ballot candidates. Winning back Congress, not to mention state legislatures and governorships may be doable with down ballot focus and Trump as the R nominee. And if Ds make voting reform and campaign reform a focus as well, we could really start cleaning up our electoral system.
posted by bearwife at 9:46 AM on April 27, 2016 [8 favorites]


This isn't a foreign policy speech; it's just a rant about Obama and Clinton. He seriously criticized Obama because our Olympic bid sucked, describing that as some great global humiliation, as if anybody cares.
posted by zachlipton at 9:50 AM on April 27, 2016


This isn't a foreign policy speech; it's just a rant about Obama and Clinton.

Assuming you're talking about Trump, he's using a teleprompter so it's presidential. And he just pronounced Tanzania "Tan-zane-ia"
posted by peeedro at 10:02 AM on April 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Watching Trump's um foreign "policy" speech.

Apparently we are drowning in debt, so it's a bad thing that Obama has cut the defence budget, so we must economically spend more on defence and less on climate change, because China, and because we are technologically superior, and funding must be increased on 3D printing, and oh I can't pronounce Tanzania but hopefully no-one will notice, and we must be smart enough to recognize the enemy, and only help our friends, and we must regard Russia with "open eyes", and China is doing bad things in the South China Sea because they do not respect our President, and I will call for a summit with our European friends to ... oh god I cannot watch any more of this. I just can't.
posted by Wordshore at 10:03 AM on April 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


We were cynical enough to joke that he'd come to the opening of an envelope, but really that's what shows an engaged politician - someone willing to show up and say some words about an issue that voters care about.

Reminds me of another great MD-8 Rep., Connie Morella (one of the few Republicans I ever wanted to vote for...she would have been a great President, actually).
posted by sallybrown at 10:09 AM on April 27, 2016


Looks like Cruz is about to name Fiorina his running mate.

In April?

That usually doesn't happen until August, no?
posted by zarq at 10:15 AM on April 27, 2016


Looks like Cruz is about to name Fiorina his running mate.

In April?

That usually doesn't happen until August, no?


Desperation knows no calendar.
posted by Etrigan at 10:17 AM on April 27, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump At War - "How The Military Is Preparing For A Very Different Kind Of Commander-In-Chief"

This is a very interesting read. I wonder if we'll see some sort of concerted effort from a PAC to air commercials with stern veterans talking about how Trump=disast
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:17 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


People who are losing the nomination don't usually have running mates, so I think the usual rules don't apply.
posted by zachlipton at 10:17 AM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's never too early to name your VP.

In unrelated news, I'm happy to announce that Patrick Stewart will be the Best Man in my upcoming wedding with Jennifer Lawrence.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:18 AM on April 27, 2016 [29 favorites]


A short clip of Donald's speech. Let's be honest - the only thing stopping him from saying "Manifest Destiny" is that it contains six syllables.
posted by Wordshore at 10:20 AM on April 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


if you put nails in his coffin, how is he going to get out to feed at night?

This reminds me that I should thank Ted Cruz for something...

It's only been during Cruz's run for President that I learned that Grandpa Munster isn't just Grandpa and isn't just a dracula, he's actually the Vlad Dracul himself! So I... learned something.

I should probably also thank Rick Scott but as it happens I was already familiar with most of Bat Boy's exploits.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:21 AM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Rest Of the World (tm) is afraid.
posted by infini at 10:23 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


The VP thing isn't so goofy - I read that some policy group recommended that everyone start vetting picks now.
posted by zutalors! at 10:24 AM on April 27, 2016


In April?

I think he's hoping to pull a Reagan-Schweiker maneuver, but a) Reagan was much closer in the delegate count to Ford that Cruz is to Trump, and b) Reagan lost the nom anyway.

A Reagan-Carter race in '76 would have been interesting.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:25 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cruz is going to announce his White House decorating theme next.
posted by drezdn at 10:27 AM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


The VP thing isn't so goofy - I read that some policy group recommended that everyone start vetting picks now.

Vetting, absolutely. They should be doing that all along. But announcing just reeks of desperation, and picking Fiorina in April reeks of a hurried two-step process of "We need women to like me!" and "Who's the first woman I can think of?"
posted by Etrigan at 10:27 AM on April 27, 2016 [13 favorites]


Tanzania Wiki
posted by infini at 10:27 AM on April 27, 2016


More like a McCain maneuver, amirite?
posted by peeedro at 10:28 AM on April 27, 2016


And he just pronounced Tanzania "Tan-zane-ia"

Day 3 of TanzaniaGate. Statement from Il Duce Donald:

"Listen, I have a very big brain and I went to the very best schools. The Best. And I own at least six, count 'em: six gold plated dictionaries with all the words in them... that I have read cover to cover. And all of the other candidates, including Chris Christie, who is a great guy, say I'm the best pronouncer they know. But look, do you think ISIS cares if I say their name correctly? They do not. Because when I'm President they'll be too busy getting nuked."
posted by zarq at 10:28 AM on April 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


More like a McCain maneuver, amirite?

Not really. McCain didn't do due diligence. Cruz knows that nobody would vote for Fiorina.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:29 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


It is depressingly easy to write in his voice.
posted by zarq at 10:29 AM on April 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump slowed 50%.

Also includes 50% and 2x versions of Hillary, Bernie, and Ted.

I'd vote for 2x Bernie. (And would smoke whatever 50% Hillary is smoking.)
posted by benito.strauss at 10:30 AM on April 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Maybe he thought he was talking about Tasmania? Australia. Africa. I doubt Trump knows the difference.
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:31 AM on April 27, 2016


It is depressingly easy to write in his voice.

It may be, zarq, but I question your choice of the multi-syllable word, "dictionaries."
posted by bearwife at 10:31 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


"word books"
posted by Chrysostom at 10:33 AM on April 27, 2016 [13 favorites]


Cruz brought Fiorni on because he needs someone to lay off his campaign staff.
posted by drezdn at 10:34 AM on April 27, 2016 [55 favorites]


The choice of Carly is a real "ball through ring" for the Cruz campaign.
posted by drezdn at 10:35 AM on April 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Looks like Cruz is about to name Fiorina his running mate.

Rearrange Deckchairs and Ignore Sinking
posted by kirkaracha at 10:38 AM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well Carly would be the one to orchestrate a disastrous merger between the Cruz and Kasich campaigns. We know she's good at corrupt backroom 11th hour deals, so maybe he thinks those skills would be useful at the convention.
posted by zachlipton at 10:39 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Fiorina thing, wow. All of her specific faults aside, when was the last time a major presidential candidate announced their VP pick while trailing in the primaries? Obviously it's weird, but is there any precedent at all?
posted by saturday_morning at 10:39 AM on April 27, 2016


I'm sorry, I misread and didn't realize Cruz had announced VP. Yeah that's ridiculous.

And Trump is going to pick Christie right? Why is he hauling Christie around everywhere? Clinton doesn't have Kirsten Gillibrand or the 40 other senators who endorsed her at her elbow everywhere. This election is so weird.
posted by zutalors! at 10:54 AM on April 27, 2016


And Trump is going to pick Christie right? Why is he hauling Christie around everywhere?

It's very presidential to have a taster.
posted by Etrigan at 10:56 AM on April 27, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yes. Reagan-Schweiker in 1976.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:57 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Picking Fiorina may only be due to needing to do well enough in CA to slow Trump enough to ensure a contested convention. Which is why I'd pick a VP, just to hopefully do just well enough in one state so maybe someone else can be picked to run for President when all the shit goes down in Cleveland.
posted by tittergrrl at 10:59 AM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Looking for info on wtf Chris Christie is thinking, I noticed that Vanity Fair has begun tagging articles about him and Trump with the tag 'hostage crisis'.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:59 AM on April 27, 2016 [22 favorites]


But most of the Christie/Trump coverage is about Christie's wife rolling her eyes at Trump onstage last night
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:00 AM on April 27, 2016


Wow do I wish I had thought to phrase that some other way than "Christie/Trump" because eeeeeeesh images
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:01 AM on April 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Looks like Cruz is about to name Fiorina his running mate.

Rearrange Deckchairs and Ignore Sinking


Alternatively: It's like if the pilot of the Hindenburg—as the burning airship was falling from the sky—got on the intercom to announce the winner of the Free Blimp Ride raffle.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:05 AM on April 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


Reagan-Schweiker in 1976.

It's worth noting that A) Reagan named Schweiker just before the convention, and B) Reagan was just barely behind Ford, who did not have a majority of delegates at that point. Four months in advance, when Cruz currently needs 104 percent of available delegates to win the nomination, is intensely weird.
posted by Etrigan at 11:07 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


But Cruz's plan has never been to win outside a contested convention. Anything he can do to force the contested convention thus makes solid sense.
posted by corb at 11:08 AM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Not quite four months. The Republican convention starts July 18, which is a bit over 11 weeks from now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:09 AM on April 27, 2016


Ah, thanks. I thought it was August.
posted by Etrigan at 11:11 AM on April 27, 2016


I was just thinking about how my friends have conceived a baby during this campaign... a baby which will be born months before the election is over. THAT IS TOO LONG YOU GUYS.

The mother has vetoed 'Bernie' as a name apparently
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:14 AM on April 27, 2016 [11 favorites]


But Cruz's plan has never been to win outside a contested convention. Anything he can do to force the contested convention thus makes solid sense.

Pyrrhus of Epirus reached the same conclusion, beforehand.

I don't even disagree with that logic, exactly, since he can't win the general election if he doesn't win the convention, but that a plan is reasonable within the bounds of Cruz's current problem ('how do I get to the general election') doesn't make it any less weird or any less bad of a plan with relation to the inseparable and related problem of 'how do I win the general election once I'm there.'
posted by cjelli at 11:19 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can someone help me out with the Fiorina pick? Why? The only thing I can think of is that she's a woman and... she's a woman. But that smacks of Trump's "Clinton wouldn't even be here if she wasn't a woman" which was so, so icky and terrible. So... why Fiorina?
posted by Justinian at 11:22 AM on April 27, 2016


inseparable and related problem of 'how do I win the general election once I'm there.'

Absolutely. The Donald Drumpf totally has this problem too, but as Nate Sliver's 538 blog points out today, Cruz in addition draws votes ONLY from the "very conservative." He has no ability to pull in the centrist/swing voters who are key to a national election.
posted by bearwife at 11:24 AM on April 27, 2016


She's a woman, and she can attack Hillary in misogynistic ways without being called a misogynist. Also, she's businessy, although that doesn't always work in her favor, because her business record is mixed. But moderates like business experience, so that's a positive.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:26 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Regarding Cruz: I saw a thing on twitter that was speculating that, at this point, Cruz should know that he's a long shot to get the nomination for 2016 but he's still likely going to be in play for 2020 (or 2024 or...) so he's setting up for the longer game. He's young enough that we all might have to get used to his creepy manner and creepier politics being around for a while.
posted by mhum at 11:26 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can someone help me out with the Fiorina pick? Why?

I think tittergrrl had it right earlier -- it helps with California, where Fiorina has a lot of name recognition. She may have ultimate lost her 2010 Senate race in California, but she won the contested Republican primary first. If Cruz can pull those voters into this primary, that's one (big) step closer to actually contesting the convention, and he needs to contest the convention to even be in a position to worry about the general election.
posted by cjelli at 11:31 AM on April 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Can someone help me out with the Fiorina pick?

She's as conservative than he is, and is fully pro-life, bringing into sharper relief the difference between his campaign and Trump's. Her positions on foreign policy, health care law, trade and tax/regulatory reform mirror his. She's pro-business, so she brings him in line with Trump's ethos there. She's in the same neighborhood as his position on domestic defense. And as ArbitraryAndCapricious says, she's going to be able to get away with the nasty attacks against Clinton that Cruz won't make for fear of being called sexist.
posted by zarq at 11:32 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


One does not have to be a man to make sexist remarks about women.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:33 AM on April 27, 2016


Etrigan: "It's worth noting that A) Reagan named Schweiker just before the convention, and B) Reagan was just barely behind Ford, who did not have a majority of delegates at that point."

Oh, yes, definitely. But it was the closest analogy, at least in the modern campaign era.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:33 AM on April 27, 2016


One does not have to be a man to make sexist remarks about women.

Obviously.
posted by zarq at 11:35 AM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


A Reagan-Carter race in '76 would have been interesting.

If Reagan had won, then had to face down the ensuing Iranian crisis... Ted Kennedy would have wiped the floor with him in 1980, and the GOP revolution would have to wait.

Question, though, is if Reagan would have won given the mood of the nation post-Watergate and in the midst of the economic turmoil of the time. And if he'd lost, who'd have run in 1984 as the Republican?
posted by dw at 11:35 AM on April 27, 2016


she's going to be able to get away with the nasty attacks against Clinton that Cruz won't make for fear of being called sexist.

Plus there's the flip side of that for the CA primary; Trump doesn't know how to attack her without making himself look awful.
posted by peeedro at 11:44 AM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Reagan had won, then had to face down the ensuing Iranian crisis...

Would '76-successful Reagan still have sold arms to the Iranians? What would that have meant for Ollie North? Would a nation not tired of Iran-Contra Congressional hearings be more inclined to give Clarence Thomas a more thorough grilling? What would Scalia have done without his silent partner? Would the world even know the name 'Hobby Lobby'?

I MUST HAVE ANSWERS.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:44 AM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Atom Eyes: "It's like if the pilot of the Hindenburg—as the burning airship was falling from the sky—got on the intercom to announce the winner of the Free Blimp Ride raffle."

[pedantry] The Hindenburg was a dirigible, not a blimp. [/pedantry]
posted by Chrysostom at 11:44 AM on April 27, 2016 [8 favorites]


"Cruz is going to announce his White House decorating theme next."

I'm guessing he's going this Schocking direction!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:45 AM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


And if he'd lost, who'd have run in 1984 as the Republican?

Congressman John B. Anderson ran in the '79-'80 GOP Presidential primaries and was third behind George H. W. Bush and Reagan. He might have run again. Other possibilities: Jack Kemp, Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush.
posted by zarq at 11:46 AM on April 27, 2016


Trump doesn't know how to attack her without making himself look awful.

So he adds that to the long, long list of things he doesn't know how to do without making himself look awful. Won't hurt him at all.
posted by Etrigan at 11:50 AM on April 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


[pedantry] The Hindenburg was a dirigible, not a blimp. [/pedantry]

\begin[mode=extreme]{pedantry}
Blimps are also dirigibles. What they are not is rigid dirigibles.
\end{pedantry}
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:56 AM on April 27, 2016 [9 favorites]


Surely we can agree that the Hindenburg was not a blimp, though, as it was rigid.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:02 PM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Blimp is a funnier word than dirigible, however, so for the purposes of the joke, the Hindenburg was a blimp.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:08 PM on April 27, 2016 [10 favorites]


Heh. Hindenburg was rigid.

Heh heh heh.
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:12 PM on April 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


zarq: "Other possibilities: Jack Kemp, Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush."

I think Bush would have had a good shot in that hypothetical.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:15 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


What's the difference between the Hindenburg and Donald Trump?

...

One is a great big but lightweight bag of hot air and bellowing gases whose fate is crashing and burning and the other is a dirigible.
posted by Justinian at 12:20 PM on April 27, 2016 [27 favorites]


Yeah, I agree.

He had run in '80 as a centrist and voters knew him very well. (Bush traveled extensively during the campaign, and had made it his business to meet as many people as possible. Wikipedia says he hit 850 campaign stops and traveled over 250,000 miles. Holy cow.) He was also reasonably well-liked, even though he had lost the primary to Reagan.
posted by zarq at 12:24 PM on April 27, 2016


She may have ultimate lost her 2010 Senate race in California, but she won the contested Republican primary first.

Sure, but the thing about that campaign that Californians remember (and I guess is not so much nationally known?) is that Fiorina was such an awful senatorial candidate that she also helped bring down fellow Republican Meg Whitman's upballot gubernatorial campaign. So if Cruz needs a lead balloon, well...
posted by psoas at 12:29 PM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm ready for a 200-comment throwdown over the idea that "dirigible" is anything but an extremely funny word.
posted by cortex at 12:31 PM on April 27, 2016 [23 favorites]


[Take any lighter than airship discussion to MeTa, please]
posted by Chrysostom at 12:37 PM on April 27, 2016 [9 favorites]


My plans for keeping at the optimal balance of informed and sane for the next few months include reading Zeynep Tufekci on a regular basis.

- Today's Storyfied tweets on how effective Trump's foreign policy speech can be: "Forces propelling Trump in the GOP are no mystery. They've been showing up in polls and academic research. Much historical precedent, too. ..."
- Adventures in the Trump Twittersphere
- NY Times index of her columns
posted by maudlin at 12:40 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


diriger is French for direct, or guide. 'dirigible' just means you can tell it what direction to move in.

The Rigid Dirigibles, however, were a Decemberists tribute band from Schuylkill, PA.
posted by benito.strauss at 12:44 PM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


Isn't Fiorina perceived as the only candidate to have stumped Trump at a debate, when she called him out for his comments about her appearance?
posted by Apocryphon at 12:44 PM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Schuylkill what? County? Valley? Expressway? Oh, there are more than one township with that name.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 12:50 PM on April 27, 2016


One is a great big but lightweight bag of hot air and bellowing gases whose fate is crashing and burning

We would also have accepted "Flaming Nazi gasbag."
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:50 PM on April 27, 2016 [17 favorites]


I'm ready for a 200-comment throwdown over the idea that "dirigible" is anything but an extremely funny word.

Please fill-in-the-blank with the most hilarious word:

"Will the owner of the light blue ______ with the license plate GASBOY-1 please report to the front information desk? Your vehicle is being very slowly towed."

a. blimp
b. dirigible
c. zeppelin
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:51 PM on April 27, 2016 [17 favorites]


I'm ready for a 200-comment throwdown over the idea that "dirigible" is anything but an extremely funny word.

Having to step away from the screen now because am seriously tempted to post a "What, if any, words are funnier than 'dirigible'?" AskMeFi.

I am thirteen.
posted by Wordshore at 12:54 PM on April 27, 2016 [6 favorites]


Please fill-in-the-blank with the most hilarious word:

Depends on what your best accent is.
posted by Etrigan at 12:55 PM on April 27, 2016


Napoleon impersonates the R101 crash.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:03 PM on April 27, 2016


Blimp is a pretty funny word too though. Blimp. Blimp. Blimp....
posted by Cookiebastard at 1:10 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


And Trump is going to pick Christie right? Why is he hauling Christie around everywhere?

Why would he pick Christie though? Everybody hates Christie, he's a joke! Trump himself will make fun of him while Christie is standing right there! Is Trump that insecure, that he can only pick a candidate he feels superior to?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:12 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is Trump that insecure, that he can only pick a candidate he feels superior to?

Well, yes, but that doesn't actually narrow it down any.
posted by Etrigan at 1:15 PM on April 27, 2016 [8 favorites]


But... Trump feels superior to everyone. He's obviously a narcissist. I suppose one could argue that he stamps his name everywhere in GIANT GOLD LETTERS because he feels insecure but I don't know that that's true and I suspect one can simultaneously feel insecure and superior.
posted by Justinian at 1:16 PM on April 27, 2016


Is Trump that insecure?

I think you just disproved Betteridge's Law.
posted by cjelli at 1:16 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Did Justinian Just Disprove Betteridge's Law?
posted by Chrysostom at 1:21 PM on April 27, 2016 [9 favorites]


A Trump veep is going to be a traditional veep: Collect a paycheck, live at the Naval Observatory, get brought out for second-tier state funerals and the once-a-term tiebreaker in the Senate. Be as well-remembered as Alben Barkley.

Problem is there just isn't a sit-down-and-shut-up sort on the GOP side anymore. Probably why they were looking at Mary Fallin.
posted by dw at 1:24 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump will probably tell Christie he's the VP pick, bring him onstage for the press conference where he announces his VP, and leave Christie standing there in the background looking like a tool while he names some other guy.

Of course, the mad Fates writing the script for this election have seen Return of the Jedi and The Goonies, so we can look forward to Christie finally getting fed up and throwing Trump off the Mar-a-Lago balcony or something at some future climactic moment!
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:24 PM on April 27, 2016 [18 favorites]


One can only dream.
posted by corb at 1:27 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


ThePinkSuperhero: Is Trump that insecure, that he can only pick a candidate he feels superior to?
"Like so many bullies, Trump has skin of gossamer. He thinks nothing of saying the most hurtful thing about someone else, but when he hears a whisper that runs counter to his own vainglorious self-image, he coils like a caged ferret. Just to drive him a little bit crazy, I took to referring to him as a “short-fingered vulgarian” in the pages of Spy magazine. That was more than a quarter of a century ago. To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers. I almost feel sorry for the poor fellow because, to me, the fingers still look abnormally stubby. The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination. Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, also written in gold Sharpie: “See, not so short!” I sent the picture back by return mail with a note attached, saying, “Actually, quite short.” Which I can only assume gave him fits."
Between that and the urge to (presumably compensate for other shortcomings and) make his mark on everything he touches, I'm gonna go with 'yes.'
posted by zarq at 1:28 PM on April 27, 2016 [10 favorites]


Here in my temporary abode in rural England, I am able to watch, live, from a continent and an ocean away, a man with zero foreign policy experience give a foreign policy speech where he cannot pronounce the names of countries, and in the name of "peace" edges towards a war with China. Followed, a few hours later, with being able to watch, again live and again a continent away, a man who has as good as lost his chance of running for president, announce his running mate.

Thank you, Tim Berners-Lee, for the wonders you have enabled us.

Though this really may not be what you had in mind when you were sitting at your desk in CERN a quarter of a century ago, fiddling around with hyperlinks
posted by Wordshore at 1:40 PM on April 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


So their website is CruzCarly.com - which has promptly crashed. AND ONE PART IS A FIRST NAME AND ONE A LAST NAME AND oh just why...
posted by Wordshore at 1:47 PM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Problem is there just isn't a sit-down-and-shut-up sort on the GOP side anymore.

Ivanka excelled at this on the Apprentice. She could read her father like a book, and pivot from independently-minded to toady in an instant, most times without him noticing. His sons weren't nearly as good at it.

It's a horrible idea, of course, which is why I don't put it past him.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:47 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


AP just called Pennsylvania for Clinton

She received 918,689 votes, 55.6% and 95 delegates.
Sanders received 719,955 votes, 43.6% and 67 delegates.
posted by zarq at 1:48 PM on April 27, 2016


WTF Carly. She's singing... and going on longer than is comfortable.
posted by Justinian at 1:49 PM on April 27, 2016


Trump's never even seen the inside of a public blimp.
posted by leotrotsky at 2:01 PM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


I guess she is not a fan of FDR.

“Be sincere, Be brief, Be seated.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

posted by lampshade at 2:05 PM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


John Kasich sits, string vest, unwashed underpants, in a musty chair, somewhere in rural Ohio. In his left hand, he slowly crushes a newly emptied Bud can. In his right he holds, dejectedly, a TV remote control, stabbing buttons as the TV channels cycle through the same footage of Cruz and Fiorina talking each other up, on their joint ticket launch.

"Ted. Ted. It was only a few days ago. I feel ... so ... used ..."
posted by Wordshore at 2:07 PM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]




That's five hundred thousand.

I can't believe what I just watched. This election is breaking my brain.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:16 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think everyone calling the Fiorina pick as a last, desperate, try to grab delegates in California are right. The VP is usually picked for something they can bring to the general election, and there's really nothing she brings to the general.

She can't bring her home state's EC votes, California won't go Republican just because she's the veep pick. She brings a bit of armor for misogynist attacks on Clinton, the Republicans love using women to deliver misogyny as they can then try to spin discussion of the misogyny into a futile discussion of whether or not it was really misogynist since a woman said it. That's basically the only reason FOX hires women.

But I doubt her utility as the voice for misogyny against Clinton, and there's really nothing else she offers in the general. Her business experience is crappy and she doesn't really have any following.

So she, at best, gains Cruz a couple of points in California, but I'm really doubtful it'll be enough. California is a hybrid state, the winner in each congressional district gets all three delegates, and there's 10 statewide given to the overall winner. Even if Cruz can shave off five or heck even ten points with Fiorina (and I'm really doubtful that she brings that much), it still doesn't seem to keep Trump from taking most of the delegates in California.

Trump is currently polling at around 50% among California Republicans, Cruz is barely 30%. Admittedly it's a long time to the California primaries, but I'm pretty sure that Fiorina won't close the gap enough to matter. And even if she does, she'll hurt him in the general.

Obviously Cruz and his team take a different view. But yow does this stink of desperation.
posted by sotonohito at 2:17 PM on April 27, 2016


AND ONE PART IS A FIRST NAME AND ONE A LAST NAME AND oh just why...

well we call the man by his last name because he is the head of his household, the foremost of his lineage, an institution unto himself

and we call the woman by her first name so we can feel like she's approachable because the expectation for women is to invite us into intimate personal relationships with them so we can dump a metric shitton of emotional labor on them
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:22 PM on April 27, 2016 [19 favorites]


I think WAAAY back when Fiorina was running, wasn't she considered part of the establishment lane? So the pick might be Cruz trying to reassure the remaining establishment types that he's not as bad as he seems.
posted by FJT at 2:30 PM on April 27, 2016


The Mysterious Case of Ted Cruz PAC's $1/2 million Donation To Help Carly Fiorina"

That article reminded me of another reason Cruz might be drawn to Fiorina as a running mate -- one of her top aides is also one of the 5 women Cruz is [allegedly] having an affair with.
posted by msalt at 2:31 PM on April 27, 2016


AP just called Pennsylvania for Clinton

Once again I wonder why the numbers don't add up. PA has 182 delegates on the D side. 95 (Clinton) plus 67 (Sanders) equals 162. When do the remaining 20 delegates get allocated?
posted by bearwife at 2:32 PM on April 27, 2016


And, just to make life more confusing, there are at least two other different calculations of how many delegates PA has.
posted by bearwife at 2:38 PM on April 27, 2016


The Mysterious Case of Ted Cruz PAC's $500 million Donation To Help Carly Fiorina

Thousand?
posted by theorique at 2:40 PM on April 27, 2016


Once again I wonder why the numbers don't add up.

This seems a little closer to the correct number.

Pennsylvania Primary Results (NYT)

Not sure how the superdelegates play within that though.
posted by lampshade at 2:40 PM on April 27, 2016


So their website is CruzCarly.com - which has promptly crashed. AND ONE PART IS A FIRST NAME AND ONE A LAST NAME AND oh just why...

Ladies don't NEED last names! Cruz is MISTER CRUZ but she's just plain ol' Carly!

(This is why I insist on calling HRC Clinton and not Hillary. And why seeing the two Dem candidates referred to as 'Hillary' and 'Sanders' in the same sentence/paragraph reeeally burns me.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:47 PM on April 27, 2016 [25 favorites]


Cruz rolling out Fiorina as the VP pick is like a guy sitting on top of a tire fire pulling out a live hand grenade and thinking somehow that will fix the situation.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:48 PM on April 27, 2016


It does seem closer. Though of course 185 is more than 182. I note that AP and NYT are counting the delegate totals slightly differently, too. If you google "primary results," Google says AP counts Clinton's total delegates as 2164, Sanders as 1355. If you look at NYT, they say Clinton has 2182, Sanders 1404.
posted by bearwife at 2:50 PM on April 27, 2016


Carly Fiorina is a weird pick. She's establishment enough to take heat off, but not establishment enough to scare his sleeper agents.

I think this is about the numbers that say Republican women are going to decide this primary.
posted by corb at 2:51 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


PA Dem delegate allocation rules:

* 127 district delegates are to be pledged proportionally to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the State's 18 congressional districts.

In addition, 62 delegates are to be pledged to presidential contenders based on the primary vote statewide.
* 42 at-large National Convention delegates
* 20 Pledged PLEOs
posted by Chrysostom at 2:51 PM on April 27, 2016


I feel like Cruz announced a VP pick just to provoke Trump into doing so as well. Cruz is already running as the true conservative, so Fiorina just basically doubles down on that platform. But Trump has been all over the map and is constantly saying something that offends the centrists in the party, then walking it back, or offends the values voter base, then walking it back. Who Trump picks as VP will be a signaling device much more so than who Cruz picks, because it could force him to actually pick a team - pretend you're a centrist or go all-in on conservatism.

Though, as the 538 discussion points out, Cruz has to do much bigger stunts to get Trump's level of media coverage. It could be nothing more than that.

(This is why I insist on calling HRC Clinton and not Hillary. And why seeing the two Dem candidates referred to as 'Hillary' and 'Sanders' in the same sentence/paragraph reeeally burns me.)

Same! There are dozens of us! DOZENS!
posted by melissasaurus at 2:52 PM on April 27, 2016 [12 favorites]


Drumpf might fuck a bunch of shit up but he wouldn't LITERALLY run the Constitution through a paper shredder

You say that like it's a bad thing. From an outsider's perspective the US Constitution seems like a bit of a fetish and the rotting carcass of US federal politics seems in desperate need of a hard reset.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:53 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


You how on the next to last episode of Survivor, the remaining contestants all take a moment to honor everyone previously voted off the island? Cruz-Fiorina and Trump-Christie shows we're to that state of the primaries.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:53 PM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


dirigible
di·ri·gir·ble \ˈdir-ə-jər-bəl, də-ˈri-jər-\
adjective
from the Latin: digerbil
First Known Use: 1581
capable of being steered onto a giant wheel for all eternity. Usage: Trump built his giant wall powered solely by his dirigible followers.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:53 PM on April 27, 2016


This is why I insist on calling HRC Clinton and not Hillary.

Yes same as me! And we can't use HRC, because then we'd have to use BS and that'd be no good. Almost as bad as BO in '08.
posted by FJT at 2:53 PM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Breaking: The GOP is now proposing that card locks be installed on ladies' restrooms to keep out scary people of questionable genders. No one will be admitted until they swipe their woman card.
posted by msalt at 2:58 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


You say that like it's a bad thing. From an outsider's perspective the US Constitution seems like a bit of a fetish and the rotting carcass of US federal politics seems in desperate need of a hard reset.

That may or may not be true. But one of the great things about the US Constitution is that it provides a democratic mechanism by which it may be slightly modified, greatly modified, or tossed out and restarted. One of those mechanisms is not, surprisingly enough, a military coup.
posted by Justinian at 2:58 PM on April 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


Almost as bad as BO in '08.

I saw people using BHO, although he was not, in fact, a Browser Handling Object.
posted by Chrysostom at 3:01 PM on April 27, 2016 [8 favorites]


oh Cruz.

I was telling an acquaintance that if--if--he managed to get the nomination he could potentially be more dangerous because he showed some awareness of strategy.

Gonna have to take that one back.
posted by schroedinger at 3:02 PM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


@goldengateblond - BREAKING: Donald Trump Announces His Running Mate Will Be An Actual Dumpster Fire.
posted by Wordshore at 3:03 PM on April 27, 2016 [13 favorites]


Cruz's strategy, at this point, is basically like when you know you're screwed in a boss fight and you just start hella mashing buttons
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:08 PM on April 27, 2016 [23 favorites]


I'd prefer 'HRC' to either 'Hillary' (sexist overtones) or 'Clinton' (disambiguation required) if it weren't for that cursed Human Rights Campaign.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:11 PM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Thanks, Chrysostom. Though that adds up to 189, yet another, different number.
posted by bearwife at 3:13 PM on April 27, 2016


I don't see why anyone would want to get involved with Cruz. I could easily imagine, on the off-chance that he succeeds in his bid to win the nomination, that Cruz would drop Fiorina in a heartbeat if it looked like someone else might help his odds better in the general. Loyalty/honor/consistency aren't really in his wheelhouse.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:13 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


That may or may not be true. But one of the great things about the US Constitution is that it provides a democratic mechanism by which it may be slightly modified, greatly modified, or tossed out and restarted. One of those mechanisms is not, surprisingly enough, a military coup.

I wasn't aware there was a "restart" mechanism in there, but given that the Federal government at this point can't even be counted on to reliably pay it's bills on time, has been at war without a DOW since WW2, can't fill the courts, etc., etc., I don't see any of that happening. Of course I am being a little facetious, a military coup would also be a non-ideal outcome. It seems at this point all we can hope for is slightly less worse - the status quo doesn't need to get too much shittier before a military coup might not be so bad.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:19 PM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


I actually think Cruz' lack of honor and loyalty may explain this pick. Really, no one that knows him seems to like him except Fiorina and his wife. For example, McCain commented not that long ago that Cruz could not get a single Senator to sponsor an amendment with him. And remember Lindsay Graham saying that if someone killed Cruz on the floor of the Senate, none of them would vote to convict?
posted by bearwife at 3:19 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wasn't aware there was a "restart" mechanism in there

You could pass an amendment which declares everything prior to that amendment null and void.
posted by Justinian at 3:22 PM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


ONE PART IS A FIRST NAME AND ONE A LAST NAME AND oh just why...

Think of some great sports stars - Ruth, Gehrig, Gretzky, Brady, Nicklaus, Bird...

And then some other sports stars - Michael, Lebron, Tiger, Serena, Venus, Kobe...

Sometimes people are well known by their first names, and sometimes it's last names. Seems to be entirely random, no reason to look for anything nefarious.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 3:39 PM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


Has Bobby Knight always been a moron or is this new?
posted by Justinian at 3:42 PM on April 27, 2016


He's always been a moron.
posted by chrchr at 3:45 PM on April 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


A Constitutional Convention, called by two-thirds of the States, would quickly turn into a wholesale restart as amendments are piled in, except for the part of the Constitution that can't be amended (equal representation in the Senate).
posted by notyou at 3:46 PM on April 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


He's always been known as combative to the point of assaultiveness. That he is also famed as a great basketball coach doesn't make him much of a political smart guy, of course.

This is an interesting riposte to Cruz's idiot speech praising basketball rings and trying to cast himself in Hoosiers.
posted by bearwife at 3:48 PM on April 27, 2016




Knight sounds as idiotic as Mark Block did in the famous Herman Cain Smoking Ad
posted by lampshade at 3:54 PM on April 27, 2016


Yeah, when you've got the backing of Bobby Knight and Mike Ditka you must be some kind of charmer.

.../Sideshow Bob groaning sound. In fact much my internal processing of both Trump and Cruz is accompanied by the Sideshow Bob sound.
posted by readery at 3:54 PM on April 27, 2016


Ted Cruz's last name is a verb (that includes a meaning of riding on a vehicle for pleasure)! Nicknames that end with "ee" sounds are super girly and juvenile sounding (I have one, so I can judge)!

cruzcarly.com sounds like a solicitation, is all I'm saying.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:55 PM on April 27, 2016 [9 favorites]


Ted Cruz picks candidate who was somehow actually less popular than him in the primaries of several states. It's a bold strategy, let's see how it plays out for him.

All in all, though, you have to admit, this still isn't anywhere near the stupidest move anyone's made this season by a long shot.
posted by Cookiebastard at 4:01 PM on April 27, 2016


I dunno, Cruz Carly actually sounds better than what they gave us. If only because you could change it to CruzGnarly.

Still saying Trump is going to try to get Justin Bieber as a running mate.
posted by happyroach at 4:03 PM on April 27, 2016




Sick burn from Lindsey Graham after the Trump foreign policy speech.
posted by peeedro at 4:35 PM on April 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


Who Trump picks as VP will be a signaling device much more so than who Cruz picks, because it could force him to actually pick a team - pretend you're a centrist or go all-in on conservatism.

Or completely avoid the horns of that particular dilemma by picking someone as wildly uncommitted to either as he is. I could totally see him picking a business associate of some sort, someone with no political experience (hell, he's been running on his lack thereof). That would prevent or at least defer any need to definitively associate himself with either faction.

It seems at this point all we can hope for is slightly less worse - the status quo doesn't need to get too much shittier before a military coup might not be so bad.

Y'know, I realize its an election year and thus the season of hyperbole, but in a world where people are genuinely experiencing military coups and/or fleeing from (and sometimes dying while trying to flee from) genuinely unacceptable social and political regimes, it would be nice if we could cultivate a bit of fucking perspective about living in what is still one of the wealthiest, most stable, and most privileged societies on the face of the earth.

I am reminded of people getting told off in other threads for lazily declaring their office working conditions as tatamount to being a plantation slave, I feel like maybe we should forego the geopolitical equivalent.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:37 PM on April 27, 2016 [24 favorites]


Is the Cruz/Fiorina logo supposed to look like fire? Even more specifically, it reminds me of the way the church would represent the holy spirit at Pentecost.
posted by drezdn at 4:41 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


A few days old by now, but I don't think it made it into any of the previous Election 2016 threads, so...

John Kasich's awkward moment at a Brooklyn matzah factory
posted by mostly vowels at 4:43 PM on April 27, 2016


Oh, that is a fun article. My favorite part is the (I hope) inadvertent blood libel reference:

Flanked by Hasidic publicist Ezra Friedlander, Kasich then launched into a brief appraisal of the links between Passover and, um, the blood of Jesus Christ.

“The great link between the blood that was put above the lampposts” – er, you mean doorposts, governor — “the blood of the lamb, because Jesus Christ is known as the lamb of God. It’s his blood, we believe …”

Also, he shook his box of matzoh.

Also, as usual, he was really incoherent.

One reason people opt for Trump is that there are no good or even tolerable choices in the GOP race.
posted by bearwife at 4:50 PM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Kasich should just announce Cruz is his running mate.
posted by drezdn at 5:01 PM on April 27, 2016 [21 favorites]


Things get pretty "fun" whenever Kasich tries to talk religion, recall his bizarre take on pantheism:

GOV. JOHN KASICH: I read a great book on St. Francis of Assisi, who the pope kind of models himself after. The environment was given to us by the lord and it needs to be taken care of. It shouldn't be worshiped, that is called pantheism. The pope pointing out the fact that we need to take care of the environment, that is good, I don't agree with his conclusion that all of it is bad because of free enterprise.

posted by mostly vowels at 5:07 PM on April 27, 2016


Nope. Kasich should announce Trump as his VP choice. It doesn't make any sense but it's confusing enough that it might get him a few more votes.
posted by rdr at 5:15 PM on April 27, 2016 [13 favorites]


Trump wouldn't be able to resist praising it -- "That's a great choice for VP, really the best choice. That guy has shown really great taste in running mates" -- and then, like the monkey with his hand stuck in the jar, he wouldn't be able to get out of the job without criticizing himself. Hah!
posted by wenestvedt at 5:20 PM on April 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think this is about the numbers that say Republican women are going to decide this primary.

Pandering to Republican women by selecting a woman running mate isn't going to change the fact that Cruz is still odd and uncharismatic. Given the choice between brash and arrogant, and creepy, what will women tend to pick in a politician?
posted by theorique at 5:22 PM on April 27, 2016


If you haven't actually seen the video of Carly Fiorina singing at her acceptance speech, it's worth watching. Someone described it to me as if she was auditioning for a role as the Von Trapp family's nanny rather than accepting her role on the ticket.
posted by zachlipton at 5:51 PM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


was there yodeling? please tell me there was yodeling.
posted by indubitable at 6:03 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


I personally think it was Fiorina's Demon Sheep commercial that swung her to Cruz' plus column. Because that is an all-in kind of commercial.
posted by jadepearl at 6:05 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cruz probably doesn't want to be evoking "So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye."
posted by Chrysostom at 6:07 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


That commercial is even funnier now for the part where it talks about how she "hasn't made a career of politics."

Like, thats still true, but not by choice....
posted by thefoxgod at 6:14 PM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


Given the choice between brash and arrogant, and creepy, what will women tend to pick in a politician?

Don't they have actual issues to vote on, not just personalities?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 6:23 PM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Don't they have actual issues to vote on, not just personalities?

We're talking about women voting in the Republican primaries so I'd say, well, increasingly no? Between Cruz's explicit policy positions and Trump's erratic "you've no idea what I'll actually do in office" manner, I don't think that choosing between them based on policies is a very easy trick at this stage.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:43 PM on April 27, 2016


Don't they have actual issues to vote on, not just personalities?

Issues? We have no time for issues. We're Making American Great Again!

Seriously, though, I would of course encourage people to read both platforms and make up their minds via serious thought, analysis, and consideration.

But let's not delude ourselves, many people (both men and women) make a voting decision based on such apparent trivialities as "this one seems a little nicer" or "that was an ugly suit" or "he looked away at the wrong time, I feel like he's untrustworthy".
posted by theorique at 7:12 PM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]




I have to say the Fiorina thing was a good way to get media attention away from Trump, which so far only Prince has been able to do.
posted by zutalors! at 7:31 PM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


Of course I am being a little facetious, a military coup would also be a non-ideal outcome. It seems at this point all we can hope for is slightly less worse - the status quo doesn't need to get too much shittier before a military coup might not be so bad.

Oh sure, we're totally just a few steps away from the equivalent of civil war with all the death and destruction that entails, as well as a destabilized country with enough nukes to burn the planet. Never mind the worldwide economic disaster that would come almost immediately.

I am confident in your ability to be better than this.
posted by phearlez at 7:59 PM on April 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump Thinks He'll Hack the General Election with Sexism the Way He Hacked the Primaries with Racism
I don't think this is Trump simply refusing to adjust his tone even though he knows he has to make changes as a general-election candidate. I think he thinks he is making changes -- but in target rather than in tone. If I'm right, his idea of a "pivot to the general" involves a ratcheting up of sexism, directed particularly at Clinton. [...]

Trump thinks the vast majority of us hate Hillary Clinton, and hate her in a sexist way -- we just won't say in public that we think she's a hag and a shrew and has an annoying laugh and a shouty voice, at least until he breaks the taboo and says it all for us. (Also: Benghazi! Monica! Emails!) I don't know at what point he's going to realize that "political incorrectness" works best in all-Republican environments. I hope that doesn't dawn on him until the night of November 8, 2016.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:07 PM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


For My Money, Donald Trump Has Never Gotten Over This Event From 5 Years Ago: Remember the White House Correspondents' Dinner? The bin Laden one?

Showdown at the Washington Hilton Corral: White House Correspondents' Dinner 2016
Saturday, April 30
Barack H. Obama, at the podium
Donald J. Trump, in the audience

(CANNOT WAIT)
posted by sallybrown at 8:10 PM on April 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ugh, so according to reports the Bernie layoffs went down in a pretty ugly way. 225 people laid off in an abrupt, 5-10 minute conference call from Jeff Weaver. No words or thanks from Bernie--that was it. Sounds like a number of staffers had been counting on the campaign to go on until June 1st, as he said it would. Report here, description of layoffs starts at 0:40.
posted by schroedinger at 9:48 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jeff Weaver -- a piece of work all the way to the end.
posted by dw at 10:20 PM on April 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


I just watched the Obama's 2011 Correspondent's Dinner takedown of Drumpfy, and was amazed to see it ended with an artist's conception of a Trump White House. He may not have goaded him into running, he may have inspired him, because it probably looked real good to him.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:37 PM on April 27, 2016


I rewatched that video after homonucleus's link jogged my memory. I forgot how brutal that bit was . . . brutally hilarious!
posted by schroedinger at 11:10 PM on April 27, 2016


I'm kind of puzzled by the media reports of Sanders campaign layoffs. The campaign opened field offices in the latest batch of primary states, hired people on a temporary basis to run them, and then shut down their offices in those states after the primaries in those states were over. Is anything going here other than the routine closure of field offices?

I mean hundreds of staffers who ran local field offices were let go after Super Tuesday. They all understood their positions were temporary. Is anything different going on after the latest round of primaries?
posted by nangar at 11:52 PM on April 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


The sense I got was that they shut down offices in pretty much every state except California, putting all their eggs in that basket.
posted by msalt at 1:02 AM on April 28, 2016


From the sounds of it, these were not people who were just hired for their states. Longer-term hired staff are rolled over into the next states if there is any expectation of success. They are certainly not let go until the general if there is an expectation the campaign will go that far. They'd been with the campaign for a bit and were expecting to have their jobs until June 1st at least, because that's how long he said he planned on going. Turns out he is--but without them. I can see why it would sting to watch him do mass layoffs (i.e. tacitly acknowledging he's no longer expecting election) while still actively soliciting and receiving a lot of donations.

It isn't just being let go early, either. It's also the manner in which he let them go. A short conference call given by one of your campaign staff, with not so much a thank-you-and-good-luck from the dude you've been sacrificing your life to hype, well. That is the sort of thing you expect when working for an unfeeling corporation, but not the sort of thing they expected from Bernie.
posted by schroedinger at 1:59 AM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


it would be nice if we could cultivate a bit of fucking perspective about living in what is still one of the wealthiest, most stable, and most privileged societies on the face of the earth.

for who?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:13 AM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't know at what point he's going to realize that "political incorrectness" works best in all-Republican environments.

Is that entirely true, though? Mainstream Republicans are also pretty PC about certain shibboleths, and there's a lot of criticism of Trump's non-PC behavior from mainstream conservative publications like National Review. And the so-called "Bernie Bros" have veered into sexism in their aggressive criticisms of Hillary.

We could certainly see some of the less ideological Bernie Bros seduced to Trump if their dislike of Hillary exceeds their dislike of Trump. All the more so because Trump is an anomalous candidate who is much more like a populist/nationalist, and who shares a few Democratic planks, than a standard issue "official Republican" in the mold of Romney or McCain.
posted by theorique at 3:33 AM on April 28, 2016


less ideological Bernie Bros seduced to Trump if their dislike of Hillary exceeds their dislike of Trump

Jumping from Bernie to Trump? That is something I cannot get my head around.

I have been seeing this same thought getting floated out here and there and I suppose it could happen. I don't understand though, how one could go from Bernie to Trump with any measure of sober thought. Maybe abstaining from the voting process or going the write-in route, but hopping across the tracks to Trump is completely odd to me. For my part, while I may have mixed feelings toward HRC, at the same time I have no doubts of the feelings of revulsion I experience towards Trump (or any of the other other GOP candidates) and the GOP itself. I could never bring myself to support any them in this cycle.

Bernie was always a long shot, but he accomplished many important things. If in the least, his campaign showed that, despite all the machinations of a career candidate, a 'coronation' can be challenged with some measure of success. A challenger can bring to the floor topics for discussion that would most certainly been swept and hidden under the carpet if not for someone raising their voice.
posted by lampshade at 4:54 AM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


If you haven't actually seen the video of Carly Fiorina singing at her acceptance speech

Are we living in a David Lynch film now?
posted by schmod at 5:41 AM on April 28, 2016 [9 favorites]


From what I understand, some people see Trump as "the populist anger candidate", as they do Sanders. So someone who is poor and angry and just wants to know what's in it for them, I can see the switch, even if it horrifies me.
posted by corb at 6:05 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


With my newly acquired trifocals, I keep seeing Turnip on the screen instead of Trump
posted by infini at 6:12 AM on April 28, 2016 [8 favorites]


From what I understand, some people see Trump as "the populist anger candidate", as they do Sanders. So someone who is poor and angry and just wants to know what's in it for them, I can see the switch, even if it horrifies me.

Exactly. If you're voting for Trump (Sanders) as a "flip off the system and the parties" candidate, it's easier to switch to Sanders (Trump) because it's not based in any strongly-held political ideology or platform loyalty.

I doubt if people who like Sanders because of "democratic socialism" or Trump because of "build the wall" are as likely to do this.
posted by theorique at 6:14 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]




That quote is . . . wow.
posted by schroedinger at 6:34 AM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump has been able to eat up fractions of two demographics--disenfranchised poor people who are socially conservative (and realize, even if some refuse to admit it, that they have been played for fools and their conservative wedge issues pandered to for their votes without any return) and anyone else on the right (and even some people in the center not taking politics seriously) who wants to disrupt the status quo of politics.

And some truly cynical people in the middle whose primary sentiment this election was "get money out of politics, disrupt a system where no politician will voluntarily get into a room with someone who will actually call them out on anything, and find anyone with a pulse who isn't afraid to say things politicians don't want said on TV," don't want to reward the corporations who have been playing (and by that I mean paying) both sides of the race for many years now.

I think Clinton missteps a little when she favorably compares herself to Obama. Many people today think her positions on issues are flexible, so they don't take her left positions as seriously. Meanwhile Obama more or less abandoned the coalition that got him elected, at least according to people who were paying more attention than me, and transparency and whistleblower protections have taken massive nosedives under him.

And so when the pre-Sanders-effect Clinton triangulation made Clinton an Obama-status-quo candidate, I think many people genuinely on the left (and not just politically on the left by virtue of lesser-evil) flinched a bit. Anybody with any reason to dislike Obama (and to be clear, there are certainly more of those people on the right) now automatically didn't have to even justify their position, not that they necessarily would have, but there it was with the work done for them.

So anti-establishment people were energized. Energized by Sanders, energized by Trump. And with Sanders more or less hoping for a lightning strike, all of that inertia siphons off towards Trump who, at the very least, is running in direct contradiction to the will of both established parties. Lots of people see that and think, gee, if I don't want to reward the status quo in politics right now, can voting for anyone else serve that purpose? Again, they're wary of trusting politicians on their campaign promises and movements and posturing. So the fact that Trump takes many contrary positions is in fact preferable to someone who clearly signals, like Clinton, that we're mostly in for the status quo. I want to make it clear that I am very anti-Trump, but that's my take on why he's so popular. And I think this joke many of us have heard before explains it fairly well:

In one of his best-known yarns, comedian Jerry Clower told of a famous coon hunt that culminates in the miraculous ascent of one John Eubanks, "a professional tree climber," up one of the biggest trees in the Amite River Swamp. The object of John's climb is what is presumed to be a coon nestled among the giant sweet gum's topmost branches. As he nears his prey, Eubanks is repeatedly admonished to "Knock 'em out, John!" Upon his arrival in the upper branches of the tree, however, the unfortunate John encounters not a coon, but a lynx. The cat proceeds to attack him, resulting in a cacophony of screams from John, screeches from the lynx, and continued encouragement from the ground in the form of "Knock 'em out, John!" John's plight is finally understood by his colleagues, and he begs them to "Shoot this thing." They reply that they are afraid to, lest they should hit John. In response, a desperate John can only plead, "Just shoot up here amongst us, one of us has got to have some relief!"
posted by Phyltre at 6:34 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yes, every campaign lays off workers, but these were core workers on the Bernie campaign. This isn't normal cycling; this is a campaign prepping to go all-in on two primaries with huge, expensive media markets.

The Bernie campaign wants to fight until they are mathematically eliminated. I wish them the best of luck. But their odds are incredibly long now, and they need Indiana just as much as California.
posted by dw at 6:39 AM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


At the risk of being extremely overconfident, I'm feeling pretty good about Clinton's chances in November.

Trump is a clown with some of the thinnest skin seen in public. I can't see him surviving a real campaign, and his appeal even among Republicans is limited to the more hardcore racists and ethnic nationalists. Most of his potential voters despise him, which is going to make a GOTV effort a real uphill battle.

And Cruz is, in a lot of ways, even worse. He's somehow, and I wasn't even sure this was possible, less likable and personable than Mitt Romney. Virtually everyone who has ever worked with him hates him and a truly shocking number of his fellow Republicans are quite open in their loathing.

Lindsay Graham is not a man I like in the slightest, but he isn't especially mean and he's a team player. When **HE** says that if someone shot Cruz on the Senate floor no one there would vote to convict them you know there's something deeply, viscerally, wrong with Cruz.

And it shows on his every public appearance. I honestly feel better about victory in a Clinton/Cruz matchup than I do in a Clinton/Trump matchup, and I feel pretty good about the Clinton/Trump odds.

Trump is a horrible, awful, person, but he does seem to inspire good feelings in the more racist and dunderheaded of Republicans. Cruz is liked by no one, even the people supporting him are doing it only because the alternative is Trump and they hate him Trump more than they hate Cruz.

I'm cautious, because I remember many of us being confident that no possible way would America elect a twerp like Junior [1], but I think even with that cautionary tale in mind I still feel confident in Clinton's chances. She has truly been blessed with incompetent, and very unlikable, opponents.

[1] And we were technically right, America didn't elect him, but he got it close enough that he could steal the Presidency and Gore was too spineless to challenge him on it.
posted by sotonohito at 6:53 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


From the belly of the beast, I desperately want to understand Cruz's "unlikeability". Because you're right - everyone in the Senate and party leadership seem to hate him. But his campaign staff /adores/ him, and from what I've seen, in these settings he seems to be a really nice guy. People like him. I'm here to defeat the Trump-monster, and even I can't help liking him.

One thing I'm wondering is if it has to do with the way he speaks? There's a lot of...what I can only call "talking after church" rhetoric. I used to think it was an affectation like it generally is, but I truly think he's sincere about his faith. And I could see where that might grate when most politicos are just kind of lip servicing, if he came bouncing up and was so appallingly "Now we're here to do the Right Thing, right?"
posted by corb at 7:03 AM on April 28, 2016


Because you're right - everyone in the Senate and party leadership seem to hate him. But his campaign staff /adores/ him, and from what I've seen, in these settings he seems to be a really nice guy.

He hasn't been running against his campaign staff for the last four years, but he's basically been running against other Republicans for that long.
posted by Etrigan at 7:08 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is that entirely true, though? Mainstream Republicans are also pretty PC about certain shibboleths, and there's a lot of criticism of Trump's non-PC behavior from mainstream conservative publications like National Review. And the so-called "Bernie Bros" have veered into sexism in their aggressive criticisms of Hillary.

Except that (a) the National Review doesn't have the prominent place in the minds of today's Republican voter base the way it might have in the past, and (b) the sum total of all criticism of Trump's most egregious racism / sexism from the right wing is a blip on the radar compared to the number of conservatives who believe that political correctness run amok is responsible for many of society's ills.

We could certainly see some of the less ideological Bernie Bros seduced to Trump if their dislike of Hillary exceeds their dislike of Trump. All the more so because Trump is an anomalous candidate who is much more like a populist/nationalist, and who shares a few Democratic planks, than a standard issue "official Republican" in the mold of Romney or McCain.

"Some", yes. An appreciable number, one large enough to make your assertion that "political correctness" could work among a significant portion of the Democratic / liberal / left-leaning electorate? That seems very far-fetched.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:09 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Rumor has it that Janet Yellen is trying to prevent a recession before the election happens to prevent a Trump presidency,

Uh. Isn't it Yellen's job always to be trying to prevent a recession? Needlessly linking it to political scheming is just conspiracy-mongering, right?
posted by aught at 7:16 AM on April 28, 2016 [14 favorites]


From the belly of the beast, I desperately want to understand Cruz's "unlikeability".

Here's what I think is an illustrative story:
The elite academic circles that Cruz was now traveling in began to rub off. As a law student at Harvard, he refused to study with anyone who hadn't been an undergrad at Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. Says Damon Watson, one of Cruz's law-school roommates: "He said he didn't want anybody from 'minor Ivies' like Penn or Brown."
A) What an amazingly arrogant asshole; B) It's hilariously obvious where Cruz went to undergrad, and it wasn't one of the two schools clearly considered the best in the country.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:32 AM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


corb, as a very liberal person my perspective may naturally be skewed. I never saw the appeal of Junior either, but a great many people did seem to genuinely like him.

For Cruz though, I get a very Romney like feel from him. He doesn't seem to have even the slightest hint of natural charisma or even much liking for other people, so like Romney he tries too hard and falls into the uncanney valley.

Unlike Junior he's actually a competent public speaker, but that weird sort of sneering smirk/smile he wears like a mask just creeps me out. And his constant churchy talk seems kind of forced as well. I don't think even fundamentalist fanatics like Junior talked so much about their religion, to me it seems less like any actual expression of personal faith and more just a way of declaring which team he's on and constantly begging people on team theocrat to vote for him. Again, I detest virtually every single position he has and the ideology that drives those positions, so I'm sure I'm prejudiced.

And his fellow Republicans hate him mainly because he isn't a team player in the slightest and spent virtually his entire Senate career attacking them almost as viciously and reflexively as he attacked the Democrats. Something his voters might want to remember: the man has no loyalty to anyone or anything but himself and will cheerfully and unhesitatingly betray absolutely everyone theoretically on his side if he sees even the slightest advantage to doing so.
posted by sotonohito at 7:37 AM on April 28, 2016


corb: ", I desperately want to understand Cruz's "unlikeability". Because you're right - everyone in the Senate and party leadership seem to hate him. "

It's that he's incredibly disingenous. I don't know if he's the smartest guy in the room like he thinks he is, but he's clearly ONE of the smartest, and he's way too fucking smart to know that he's not LYING OUT HIS ASS with a lot of his posturing. He knew, in the 2013 shutdown, that there was no path for the GOP to repeal Obamacare, but he threw the entire damn country under the bus so HE could make a point about it and endear himself to the far right -- and, to the rage of his colleagues, poisoned Congress so that they couldn't get out from under the shutdown either AND took away all of their bargaining power. And then blamed his GOP colleagues for failing and frame himself as the martyr to the cause. He had no end game. He knew he had no way to end the shutdown except capitulation by the GOP, and he ensured his colleagues had to capitulate and HE kept refusing to admit that there was no point or purpose to the shutdown except personal grandstanding, and he damaged the political careers of dozens of his GOP colleagues, and he didn't give a shit -- and kept giving nasty quotes about them to the media, while complaining that other Senators were doing the same to him. A man willing to hold the ENTIRE COUNTRY hostage and withhold paychecks from federal employees and services from citizens and to ruin the careers of his own party SOLELY FOR PERSONAL PR VALUE is not really someone who should be trusted with the presidency, and is not someone anybody's going to like.

In like every politifact-type breakdown, Cruz comes up as the second-lying-est candidate (after Trump); he makes claims that are totally at odds with reality. And if you go further back to before he was running for president, you see the same thing. He constantly claims things are unconstitutional that he is too smart not to know are just fine, and he makes claims about what Congress or the President can do that he obviously knows are unconstitutional or impossible or illegal. (This also enrages his congressional colleagues because he can make all kinds of nutty claims about what Congress "could" be doing while ginning up angry Tea Party voters, but Congress turns out to be actually constrained by the Constitution, and then his GOP colleagues are held responsible by voters for not engaging in flatly unconstitutional actions that nobody ever suggested but Ted Cruz, who obviously knows better.)

He'd actually be less annoying if he were a true believer on these issues, but he is too smart and too good of a Constitutional lawyer not to know he's saying things that are outright false because he knows he can't be held to them -- but he can screw his colleagues by having them held to his false claims, and he can poison the national discourse by promising fantasy strategies that would be totally illegal.

Donald Trump is a dangerous lunatic, but Ted Cruz tells canny lies that do incredible damage to our national political discourse, and has shown himself willing to take the entire country hostage for nothing but personal gain. There was no party PR gain -- indeed they were badly damage. There was no possibility of any outcome he wanted, and he knew that and admitted it. He shut down the country solely for personal press coverage. He's a smart, canny, savvy jackass.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:38 AM on April 28, 2016 [59 favorites]


I mean if you want to talk about how the Congressional GOP has ended up so badly damaged that they're losing leadership positions to Freedom Caucus insurgents and they're looking at the loss of the Senate and they've been unable to get ANYTHING passed or even organize themselves around immigration reform (which was their top priority coming out of the 2012 loss), a hell of a lot of that blame belongs to Ted Cruz and his repeatedly deliberate screwing of his colleagues who attempt to do anything like govern. He's already badly damaged the Republican Party and its institutions; I'm not sure why any Republican would want him in charge since he is the bull in the china shop when it comes to the GOP. He's HELPED Democrats with his polarizing rhetorical strategies and self-aggrandizing legislative maneuvers.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:43 AM on April 28, 2016


how on Earth did he get this far in the race?
posted by zutalors! at 7:47 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


From the belly of the beast, I desperately want to understand Cruz's "unlikeability".

He’s that guy.

He’s the boss who makes promises his employees could not possibly deliver, and then publicly humiliates them (and obviously enjoys it) when they can’t do it.

He’s the church elder who tells teen girls that they are “causing men to stumble and war with lust” by wearing [tank top/yoga pants/lace edged collar of a completely modest floral dress*=whatever clothing item evangelical monsters are currently demonizing], implies they are probably sluts, and thereafter uses it as an excuse to ogle all young women in the congregation “for their own good”.

He’s the coworker who snitches on everyone else, even for things that aren’t wrong, and so becomes hated by both his coworkers and the HR department (“Candace is allowed to go to the bathroom whenever she needs to, Ted”).

He’s the patron in the restaurant who complains to management because his server’s skirt is too short, and there are children around.

He’s every petty tyrant ever, who pretends he’s a benevolent patriarch leading sad people to wisdom.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:49 AM on April 28, 2016 [14 favorites]


I desperately want to understand Cruz's "unlikeability".

Jeffrey Toobin wrote a piece for the New Yorker two years ago that provides one view from before the current race started (although after it was clear that Cruz was gearing up to run) -- The Absolutist, June 30, 2014 -- that goes into some of the details of Cruz's obstructionism in the Senate, and his efforts to help unseat moderate incumbent Republicans.

From a less reasoned perspective, you also have Cruz's Princeton roommate and the recollections of fellow alumni who knew him:
In addition to Mazin and Leitch, several fellow classmates who asked that their names not be used described the young Cruz with words like “abrasive,” “intense,” “strident,” “crank,” and “arrogant.” Four independently offered the word “creepy,” with some pointing to Cruz’s habit of donning a paisley bathrobe and walking to the opposite end of their dorm’s hallway where the female students lived.
posted by cjelli at 7:50 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Penn is a "minor Ivy?" That explains so much.

From the belly of the beast, I desperately want to understand Cruz's "unlikeability".

Cruz is an outsider to the party. Remember how much eyerolling there was with his infamous "Green Eggs And Ham" not-quite-a-filibuster. He's always come off to the party elites as someone who isn't willing to wait his turn in line -- and honestly, as someone who'd stab his own mother in the back if it would get him more power.

Personally, I point to two things:
1. His father's embrace of Seven Mountains Dominionism that leaks into his own campaign rhetoric. 7MD is probably the most theocratic form of Dominionism, which really, really worries me about getting someone like him into higher office. And I say that as someone who has zero animus towards Christianity. My animus is towards this belief that Christians are superior to all others in leadership and thus should rule over the heathen. Is Ted a hardcore 7MD? I'm not sure. But I sure hear some things that sound like shibboleths in his speeches.

2. The way he's playing his campaign more like Tammany Hall meets Game of Thrones than the other campaigns I've seen in my lifetime. The "Carson is dropping out" slime move was bad. The way he's played the defects in the GOP nomination system and counting on a contested convention to give him what he wants -- even as he's burned so many bridges among the party elites. Yes, I know, EVERY campaign is like this. But not this backdoor weasely slimy bad. Obama end-arounded Hillary by using the people. Cruz is doing it by backroom deals. I can't get behind that.

If I had to vote for a Republican, it would be Trump. He's a rogue variable, an egomaniac with a glass jaw. But, in the end, I see him coming to terms with the responsibility and governing in a Schwarzenegger way -- not the best governor, but one that could actually govern by compromise and horsetrading. Cruz... he scares me. A lot. Because I believe our Founding Fathers got away from that sort of dominionist thinking when they hopped on the boat to get away from the Church of England. And I also think Game of Thrones is a good story, but as real life? HELL NAH.

(Edited to add: Oh yeah, and arrogant and cocky. It's like LBJ came back as a far right Republican.)
posted by dw at 7:53 AM on April 28, 2016 [11 favorites]


how on Earth did he get this far in the race?

"The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Cruz has been hammering on the former part of that while not mentioning that he's the one doing the latter. Most people have forgotten how much he had to do with the shutdown of 2013, but they remember the shutdown.
posted by Etrigan at 7:53 AM on April 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


Watching Trump get closer to an outright first-ballot win has been unexpectedly relieving. Cruz is not just Lawful Evil personified but unnervingly smart. Also every time I see him speak my gut instinctively twists like I almost just stepped on a squirrel corpse squirming with maggots
posted by theodolite at 7:59 AM on April 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


From the belly of the beast, I desperately want to understand Cruz's "unlikeability". Because you're right - everyone in the Senate and party leadership seem to hate him.

I think for his colleagues it probably boils down to him not being a team player. He has proven really, really arrogant, condescending and stiff-necked when asked to alter his path for the good of the party and by extension the country.

The most obvious example is the 2013 attempt to defund the ACA, which led to the government shutdown. The bill was a egotistical fool's errand, and anyone with a lick of sense wouldn't have pushed for it. Think about this for a moment: Cruz literally spearheaded a bill to defund President Obama's signature law. The one that Republicans had named "Obamacare." Republicans didn't have 2/3 of the House or the Senate. How were they going to convince the President not to veto? To get him to sign it? Or to pass it without him?

So, he knew the bill wouldn't succeed, but it made him popular with his Texas constituents and increase his visibility nationally, so he did his filibuster and became the leader of a government shutdown. He self-servingly and stupidly shut down the entire government to make himself look good with voters who think government should be, as Grover Norquist once said, "drown[ed] in a bathtub."

And all of this happened while the US was about to default on its debt payments. As the shutdown wore on and the prospect of the American dollar being downgraded looked more and more like an impending reality, Cruz became a target of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the rest of the country. Norquist then famously complained that Cruz had thrown Republicans under the bus.

But there's a bigger problem: economics isn't just numbers, it's perception. America has been an economic superpower for 70 years in part because we don't deliberately screw up and we do protect our own interests -- with military force if necessary. Cruz played Chicken with our currency and the economy on a fool's errand -- and only backed down at the very last second. It's a dumbass obstinance that would give anyone relying on the dollar's ubiquitous supremacy to think, "Hey, how's the Euro doing? The EU is at least sane -- maybe we should use the Euro as our universal currency for a while 'cause America is growing dangerously unstable and incompetent."

In the end, he signed up for Obamacare, opting to ensure his family had health coverage over his conservative principles. Texans would probably have liked to have had the same choice for their families.
posted by zarq at 8:01 AM on April 28, 2016 [24 favorites]


Also, and this is a personal preference.... I find the way the man invokes "liberty" and G-d in many stump speeches repellant. You come away feeling that he thinks G-d is on his side, standing behind his every victory, as well as his personal warrior -- and that you're oppressed and he's your personal savior. It's self-righteous and arrogant.
posted by zarq at 8:09 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


At the risk of being extremely overconfident, I'm feeling pretty good about Clinton's chances in November.

Hell, I'm feeling great about it.

In the general election, there are a small handful of states that have even the vague possibility of flipping. Alabama is not in play, California is not in play, etc. So what IS in play?

Go to 270towin.com and select "same since 2000." I think it's fair to say that these states represent floors for both Clinton and Trump. So that's a floor of 242 for Clinton vs. 180 for Trump. (The site also has a 'projected 2016 toss-up map' but I think the "same since 2000" map illustrates this whole concept better.)

So, what states have voted inconsistently since 2000? These ten: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and New Hampshire. The election will be decided by these ten states - but really, there are a few we can go ahead and assign to one candidate or other.

Obama took Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico twice. Now, Nevada MIGHT be in play, but I cannot imagine a universe in which Trump takes Colorado in 2016. Iowa and Indiana I think you can go ahead and cede to Trump, for the purposes of this game.

And then we come to Virginia.

Here is a more learned person than me on Trump v Clinton in Virginia:

Virginia, my favorite. The state will be won by Fairfax/Alexandria/McLean and Norfolk. It will, we all know that. Rubio won those BIG and came within 3-4% of Trump statewide in the primary because of it. Clinton smashed Sanders in those very regions. Like I said for other states, you have the deciding region of a battleground state, that NoVA-Norfolk duo, being a place that Clinton is strong and Trump is weak. So where does he win? How does he overcome that? Those areas are DC insiders and elites, and no matter what the energy is, they will decide the election and they're leaning lightly blue but heavily Clinton.

I cannot find a hole in this logic. Even without the fact that Obama took Virginia twice, Trump in VA is just not a winning proposition.

So with CO and VA to Clinton and IA and IN to Trump, we're at 264 for Clinton and 197 for Trump, out of the 270 needed to win.

That means Trump would need to win all of Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida to win. (Sorry NH you don't actually matter after all.)
With the exception of North Carolina, Barack Obama won all of those states twice.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:14 AM on April 28, 2016 [9 favorites]


Frankly, the idea that he's actually sincere about his faith is much scarier than it all being an act. The people of faith he chooses to spend his time with (like those that call for the extermination of people who are LGBT or Muslim), as well as his dad's history of dominionism as the be-all-end-all of politics, makes me very uncomfortable.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:16 AM on April 28, 2016 [14 favorites]


There's a Trump Rally, going on right in my backyard tonight. It would take me 20 minutes to walk there. I know, because it's the same place the summer county fair is held. Two things cross my mind. One, I have no idea if I should do something about this. Whether to go and see what's going on, or even protest it. Two, I'm a bit unsettled. I know I live in a Republican stronghold, but I always thought it was an establishment Republican stronghold. But, now it's certain that I'm also among Trump supporters.
posted by FJT at 8:20 AM on April 28, 2016


dw, thanks for mentioning Seven Mountains Dominionism. I didn't realize Cruz's father was an adherent.
posted by zarq at 8:31 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


FJT: Go to the rally!
posted by notyou at 8:31 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


FJT: Don't go to the rally!
posted by Etrigan at 8:33 AM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


(Okay, I'll expand.)

Trump rallies have been shown to attract people who are spoiling for a fight. Protesting the rally, even in a subtle way, might have negative, even permanent, results. I think you're more likely to get your ass kicked than to change the mind of anyone who's on the fence and just showed up to the rally.
posted by Etrigan at 8:34 AM on April 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


dw, thanks for mentioning Seven Mountains Dominionism. I didn't realize Cruz's father was an adherent.

Yeah, Cruz's dad is... yeah
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:39 AM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Wait, why are we ceding Iowa to Trump? Obama won Iowa twice. Cruz won the caucus. I don't think it's a lock, but I would guess Hillary wins Iowa.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:44 AM on April 28, 2016


More votes have been cast for Trump in this year's Republican primary than were cast for Romney in the 2012 general election. And we haven't even gotten to California yet.

That is terrifying. The GOP base is riled up, registered and motivated to get their ass to the polls. The Democratic base is divided and becoming embittered, a sure recipe for staying home in droves. We may see solid blue states flip. We may see effects downballot, where Trump voters blindly pull the R lever.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:45 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


FJT, do you own a drone?
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:48 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


More votes have been cast for Trump in this year's Republican primary than were cast for Romney in the 2012 general election. And we haven't even gotten to California yet.


What? No, not even close. Trump has something like 10 million-odd votes thus far, and Romney got 60-some million in the 2012 general.
posted by dersins at 8:48 AM on April 28, 2016 [19 favorites]


The Democratic base is divided and becoming embittered, a sure recipe for staying home in drives.

The 2008 primary season was objectively worse than this one.

We may see solid blue states flip. We may see effects downballot, where Trump voters blindly pull the R lever.

So far there is zero evidence whatsoever that this is even remotely close to happening. The GOP are the ones worried about downballot effects.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:49 AM on April 28, 2016 [9 favorites]


Wait, what? The GOP base is not behind Trump. They are massively more divided than the Democrats are. Like, not even on the same planet.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:51 AM on April 28, 2016 [8 favorites]


Seriously, go to the rally. You don't have to protest, or try to persuade anybody or do anything else that might get you hurt. Just go to see it for yourself. History is happening 20 minutes from your porch!
posted by notyou at 8:51 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, grain a salt for conventional wisdom, obviously, but all of the forecasting is that we should be looking at a significantly better House forecast with Trump as nominee.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:51 AM on April 28, 2016


FJT, do you own a drone?

Flying a drone over a crowded rally is unquestionably a violation of FAA rules, as would be flying it out of line of sight (so s/he would need to be there anyway). Regardless of my opinion of FAA overreach on drones, this is a super tremendously double-plus bad idea.
posted by phearlez at 8:53 AM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think you're more likely to get your ass kicked than to change the mind of anyone who's on the fence and just showed up to the rally.

Yeah, I know. But I really don't like that he's holding a rally where I live. Not only where I live, but where I drive past everyday when I go to and from work. And at a location that holds a lot of fun events I like to go to (in addition to the fair, that area also held a Tet festival, an Asian-style night market, and a weekend swap market). Thinking about that does make me a little angry.

FJT, do you own a drone?

I don't. If I did and flew it, I wonder if police would target it. I'm reading articles that their beefing up their presence, and a police station is right across from the rally site too.
posted by FJT at 8:54 AM on April 28, 2016


More votes have been cast for Trump in this year's Republican primary than were cast for Romney in the 2012 general election.

Remember three things:
1. 2012 didn't have a lot of heat and light after January. Most of the insanity happened in the last quarter of 2011.
2. Romney essentially had the nomination wrapped up on Super Tuesday. Santorum finally gave up early April, but there was no way he was going to catch Romney after mid-March.
3. The #nevertrump percentage of the GOP vote is running over 30%. By comparison, #neverhillary is now under 20% and falling.

Don't worry about Trump's supporters. Worry about the anti-government sentiment leaking into independents and moderates. This is Hillary's election to lose IF she can get the middle and independents to trust that we shouldn't just monkeywrench the government to solve Congress.
posted by dw at 8:55 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Women and people of color are going to turn out in numbers higher than ever before to reject Trump. I know that's against the conventional wisdom about voting for someone vs voting against someone, but this is not a conventional election. I just volunteered to work at my polling place because I am already relishing the sight of a tide of woman power and people power sweeping through those doors and swamping the SS Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 8:55 AM on April 28, 2016 [8 favorites]


Intellectually, I know I should hate and fear the prospect of a True Believer Cruz nomination more than that of Cynical Demagogue Trump.

But in my gut, Trump elicits such feelings of dread and utter loathing (and has done so for decades, even back when friends were being entertained weekly by "The Donald's" antics on that awful fucking reality TV show) that I can't brook the possibility, however slight, that he could be our next president. So, even though I hope and believe that Clinton will mop the floor with him, his primaries success has given me no relief, only agita.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:56 AM on April 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


What? No, not even close. Trump has something like 10 million-odd votes thus far, and Romney got 60-some million in the 2012 general.

You're right, I needed to read the article more carefully. Panic cancelled - Trump being more engaging than Romney isn't really news.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:56 AM on April 28, 2016


Flying a drone over a crowded rally is unquestionably a violation of FAA rules, as would be flying it out of line of sight (so s/he would need to be there anyway). Regardless of my opinion of FAA overreach on drones, this is a super tremendously double-plus bad idea.

Okay, okay, nix the drone. Sorry.

FJT, do you own a trebuchet?
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:00 AM on April 28, 2016 [27 favorites]


And Clinton has about 2 million more primary votes than Trump at this point.

I don't. If I did and flew it, I wonder if police would target it.

"Donald Trump's Secret Service detail shot down my drone" would make a hell of a story for the grandkids, you gotta admit.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:01 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hispanic voter registration is way up, including in some swing states.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:01 AM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Wait, why are we ceding Iowa to Trump? Obama won Iowa twice. Cruz won the caucus. I don't think it's a lock, but I would guess Hillary wins Iowa.

Well, likely. It's a tossup in my mind. Iowa voters look like Trump voters. OTOH, there's a liberal streak there, so I wouldn't just make it red.

As is, North Carolina and Georgia are now becoming possible states that can flip blue. Hillary may end up with five Confederacy states in her column.

Right now, the wind is at her back. She can still squander the lead and let Trump slip into it. And bringing in Cruz could mean the dark pools of super-PAC money might come off the sidelines. But right now, she's the odds-on favorite with the bookies for a reason.
posted by dw at 9:01 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


OK verifying my numbers on thegreenpapers.com I was reminded that Carly Fiorina's full first and maiden name is "Carleton Sneed."

I love this election, honestly
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:03 AM on April 28, 2016 [22 favorites]


it would be nice if we could cultivate a bit of fucking perspective about living in what is still one of the wealthiest, most stable, and most privileged societies on the face of the earth.

for who?


Iraq was unquestionably a shitshow country run by a lunatic willing to kill both foreign individuals as well as his own citizens. Despite that, destabilizing it lead to a tremendous loss of life there and created circumstances that allowed the strengthening/birth of groups that killed people in many other countries around the world.

So, regardless of this shit the US does around the world which I am very much not in support of, what would destabilizing IT result in worldwide? Seriously, wish for and work towards a better USA - I do - but wishing it would collapse into a Syria style mess but with nukes and weapons and twenty-five times the land mass and population? Just buy a fucking "I HEART GENOCIDE" t-shirt so you can advertise honestly. It's a marginally more acceptable variation on "just nuke the whole middle east till it glows."
posted by phearlez at 9:05 AM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


FJT, look around you. Can you form some sort of rudimentary lathe?
posted by zombieflanders at 9:07 AM on April 28, 2016 [27 favorites]


"Donald Trump's Secret Service detail shot down my drone" would make a hell of a story for the grandkids, you gotta admit.

"The Secret Service tracked me down and arrested me for flying a drone over a political rally" might be more likely.
posted by zarq at 9:07 AM on April 28, 2016


As is, North Carolina and Georgia are now becoming possible states that can flip blue.

I hadn't heard this about GA. I know Bill Clinton took it, but if Obama couldn't...
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:09 AM on April 28, 2016


zombieflanders, as in the Lathe of Heaven? An 'effective' dream could turn this whole election around.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:13 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Pretty sure zombieflanders was offering a Guy Fleegman-ism.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 9:15 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just buy a fucking "I HEART GENOCIDE" t-shirt so you can advertise honestly. It's a marginally more acceptable variation on "just nuke the whole middle east till it glows."

you got all that out of a two word question?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:16 AM on April 28, 2016


As I recall, those dreams didn't work out that well for the Lathe of Heaven guy.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:17 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


FJT, if the rally is going to be in the county fairground, is there going to be fairground food? Because funnel cake.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:18 AM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


No one should wish a civil war on the United States. The first one killed 620K -- that's nearly half of all American war casualties ever. A Second Civil War would certainly lead to the deaths of millions, perhaps tens of millions, with many more displaced. Meanwhile, the world economy would have an immense upheaval as it tried to deal with the equivalent of a Lehman level collapse, but we're talking about TRILLIONS of dollars overnight vanishing from trade and moving to things like guns and armaments (and probably a nuke or two).

And unless Canada and Mexico sealed their borders, they will most certainly get dragged into this mess, with everything from guerrilla raids to cities getting bombed/nuked.

This assumes, however, that you'd end up with two roughly equal sides and the rebels seizing union armaments. If it's more of a guerrilla war, well, that would be very asymmetric and more like an ETA/IRA sort of slow-burning civil war... tho I could see the rebels nuking a coastal city just because. Millions will still die.
posted by dw at 9:19 AM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


OK verifying my numbers on thegreenpapers.com I was reminded that Carly Fiorina's full first and maiden name is "Carleton Sneed."

Cara Carleton Sneed.
posted by Etrigan at 9:19 AM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hispanic voter registration is way up, including in some swing states.

Does anyone have any unbiased numbers on how that's turning out? I'm getting more and more freaked out about the Hispanic vote since all the Nicas I know are apparently voting Trump. Including every member of my family but me. Even when I remind them most people can't tell the difference between Hispanics of various origins. Even when I try to shamelessly pander and remind them Cruz is Hispanic. It's like they think their ticket to white assimilation is a Trump victory. It's horrifying.
posted by corb at 9:24 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


ROU_Xenophobe: "FJT, if the rally is going to be in the county fairground, is there going to be fairground food? Because funnel cake."

So, years ago, when I was younger and more naive, I went to New Orleans for the first time. And all the guidebooks and such had gone on and on about beignets. And I'm all excited to try one. So I order it, take a big bite..."What the fuck?!? This is a funnel cake!!!"

I mean, I like funnel cake. But I'm not going halfway across the country for it.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:25 AM on April 28, 2016 [10 favorites]


I'm getting more and more freaked out about the Hispanic vote since all the Nicas I know are apparently voting Trump. Including every member of my family but me.

Isn't your family/social group pretty Republican? The trend isn't so much "Hispanics dislike Trump specifically," although on average they do - it's "new Hispanic voters are more likely to be Democrats."
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:29 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Does anyone have any unbiased numbers on how that's turning out?

Well, from that article:

A whopping 80 percent of respondents in a poll of registered Hispanic voters in Colorado and Nevada said Trump's views on immigration made them less likely to vote for Republicans in November. In Florida, that number was 68 percent.

So, that seems indicative, at least. Also:

Jon Ralston, a veteran Nevada political journalist who is not surprised by the numbers, said, “The real problem is that Trump, and, to a lesser degree, Cruz, will drive up Hispanic turnout against Republicans."

He said the only path for the GOP nominee to the White House in such a situation would be to win more white votes.

Ralston described this as “a path we have never seen before. Huge increase in white vote.”


Grain of salt again, but Ralston is very very very highly regarded as a Nevada expert. I would take his word on Nevada, at least.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:31 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]




A whopping 80 percent of respondents in a poll of registered Hispanic voters in Colorado and Nevada said Trump's views on immigration made them less likely to vote for Republicans in November. In Florida, that number was 68 percent.

One should never under-estimate the Mariel-era Cuban refugee population's willingness to say well I got mine already so whatevs. I guess it's nice they're expanding out to being willing to turn their back on other nationalities than just Hatian.
posted by phearlez at 9:35 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


finally, us white people get to be a key demographic!
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:35 AM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


Also (this is from back in February):

Today, 8 in 10 Hispanic voters have an unfavorable view of Trump. That includes more than 7 in 10 who have a “very unfavorable” impression of him, which is more than double the percentage of any other major candidate.

In current matchups with Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, Trump scores worse among Hispanics than any of the three other leading Republican candidates [...] losing the Hispanic vote to Clinton by 73 to 16 percent.


HOWEVER - and corb, this is why you're seeing what you've been seeing - Despite his struggles with Hispanic voters overall, Trump wins a share of those planning to vote in Republican primaries and caucuses. Rubio tops the field with 27 percent support, followed closely by Trump at 22 percent and Cruz at 19 percent, all within the range of sampling error.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:38 AM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Because funnel cake.

You know, I don't know. They're holding it at the Pacific Amphitheater, which is where outdoor concerts for cover bands are usually held. If they do have food, it will probably like fajitas and hot dogs. Funnel cake seems like a possibility though.

Okay, so I think things might get a little tense. Yesterday, the city council of Anaheim (city about 15-20 min driving away from the rally) considered, but ultimately decided to table a resolution denouncing Donald Trump. There were people there to support Trump and those there to protest him. Things got a little tense, and five people ended up getting pepper sprayed. Also in Anaheim, in late February the KKK held a rally and ended up with three folks getting stabbed.

The Democrats of OC and the OC Young Democrats issued a statement condemning Trump and are planning a protest the rally. I have not heard if Democrats in LA or San Diego are planning anything at his point. The Facebook event for the protest already has 509 people planning to go. I read that the rally itself is expected to have about 10,000 folks. The rally has not been coordinated with the OC Republican Party either. A police station and firehouse are right across the street from the fairgrounds too.
posted by FJT at 9:40 AM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


I hadn't heard this about GA. I know Bill Clinton took it, but if Obama couldn't...

North Carolina and Georgia were the two states that were tossups to the end of the 2012 campaign. North Carolina was close, but Georgia was further back. I think Georgia is the longest shot of the five Confederacy states that could go blue, but they have a growing Hispanic population. It really comes down to Hillary keeping African-American turnout roughly equal with 2012, massive Hispanic turnout, and pulling a few more educated whites.

It is still early, though. Always keep that grain of salt in mind.
posted by dw at 9:44 AM on April 28, 2016


Thanks, showbiz_liz, that is at least comforting even if I find the phenomenon of Hispanic Trump-voters inexplicable.
posted by corb at 9:50 AM on April 28, 2016


" You come away feeling that he thinks G-d is on his side, standing behind his every victory, as well as his personal warrior -- and that you're oppressed and he's your personal savior. "

... which is more or less what his father has been telling him since he was a little kid: "Even when he was a young boy, I knew Ted had a special calling on his life. Every day, I immersed him in prayer, asking God to protect him and grant him wisdom. And I told Ted over and over, ‘God has given you remarkable talents, and you must use those gifts to His glory.’ Ted knew in his heart that he would dedicate his life to fighting for the preservation." (Rafael Cruz's book)

Rafael on Ted deciding to run: "My son Ted and his family spent six months in prayer seeking God's will for this decision. But the day the final green light came on, the whole family was together. It was a Sunday. We were all at his church, First Baptist Church in Houston, including his senior staff. After the church service, we all gathered at the pastor's office. We were on our knees for two hours seeking God's will. At the end of that time, a word came through his wife, Heidi. And the word came, just saying, "Seek God's face, not God's hand." And I'll tell you, it was as if there was a cloud of the holy spirit filling that place. Some of us were weeping, and Ted just looked up and said, "Lord, here am I, use me. I surrender to you, whatever you want." And he felt that was a green light to move forward."

His father also had Ted literally anointed as a King (according to how his evangelical group interprets kingly anointing procedures in the Old Testament, which is to say VERY WRONGLY) back at the beginning of the election cycle. So, yeah, there's definitely a messianic strain to Cruz's rhetoric, campaign, and probably his self-understanding because his father's been telling him it's his destiny since he was little.

More on the Cruzes' religions, and here's a brief mainstream Christian takedown of some of the crazier bits of Rafael's Dominionism
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:04 AM on April 28, 2016 [29 favorites]


Also in Anaheim, in late February the KKK held a rally and ended up with three folks getting stabbed.

(previously)
posted by indubitable at 10:05 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


North Carolina and Georgia were the two states that were tossups to the end of the 2012 campaign.

In 2012, the Obama campaign knew from fairly early on that Georgia wasn't really in play. Yet.

North Carolina, on the other hand, was always going to be fairly close-- close enough to be worth reaching for, even if it was a bit of a stretch.
posted by dersins at 10:06 AM on April 28, 2016


Eyebrows McGee....that is terrifying.
posted by agregoli at 10:08 AM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


I...I'm pretty sure I first encountered Ted Cruz as a Vertigo Comics villain back in the mid-90s
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:29 AM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


He's not written well enough for that. One of those Image knockoffs, sure.
posted by Etrigan at 10:30 AM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Check his feet, see if he was drawn by Liefeld.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:33 AM on April 28, 2016 [13 favorites]




And that's from a guy who's worked with convicted pedophiles.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:39 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


“Oh I’m a woman, vote for me,” Mr. Boehner said, impersonating Mrs. Clinton.

whoa, uncanny
posted by theodolite at 10:52 AM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


I hope his campaign has to respond to that.

"Ted Cruz: Not The Devil."
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:55 AM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Mother Jones story on Cruz is worth another look. EVERYONE has hated him, from roommates and classmates to fellow clerks to the Bushies to all his coworkers. Exceptions: Fiorina, who seems to really like his kids, judging from her singing acceptance of his VP nod, and his wife. And I think it is disquieting as well how often he has made it clear that his Christianity comes first, followed by his citizenship, his conservatism, and his Republicanism.
posted by bearwife at 10:57 AM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


"Ted Cruz: Not The Devil."

It worked for Christine "I'm Not a Witch" O'Donnell. (For certain definitions of "work.")
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:03 AM on April 28, 2016


Carly Fiorina's full first and maiden name is 'Carleton Sneed.'

A Series of Unfortunate Campaign Events

The Mother Jones story on Cruz is worth another look. EVERYONE has hated him, from roommates and classmates to fellow clerks to the Bushies to all his coworkers.

No one would let Cruz sit with them at Scalia's funeral, even Scalia's clerks, and he used to be a clerk for Scalia. When people snub you at a funeral you're super hateable.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:04 AM on April 28, 2016 [22 favorites]


Between them and John Ellis and Piyush and James Richard, they should form the candidate caucus of name-changers.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:27 AM on April 28, 2016


I'm pretty sure if you say Ted Cruz's true name three times while standing in a warded circle he becomes bound to serve you for seven years, so I can understand why he goes by "Ted"
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:32 AM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Between them and John Ellis and Piyush and James Richard, they should form the candidate caucus of name-changers.

And James Earl and Leslie Lynch King Jr. and Thomas Woodrow and Ike and do we really need to continue to make fun of people for wanting to go by something other than what's on their birth certificates just because we don't like them?
posted by Etrigan at 11:38 AM on April 28, 2016 [8 favorites]



And James Earl and Leslie Lynch King Jr. and Thomas Woodrow and Ike and do we really need to continue to make fun of people for wanting to go by something other than what's on their birth certificates just because we don't like them?


Yeah can we please not do this?
posted by zutalors! at 11:40 AM on April 28, 2016


man i'd love feeling like God approved of everything i did. actually, i sort of felt that way when I was prescribed fentanyl lollipops
posted by angrycat at 11:42 AM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Regarding Cruz being the Devil, I'm with (the possibly mythic) LBJ: I want to make the son-of-a-bitch deny it.
posted by sotonohito at 11:49 AM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Some interesting delegate allocation nerdery from 538 at Clinton’s Delegate Lead Would Triple Under GOP Rules and Donald Trump Would Be Easy To Stop Under Democratic Rules, exploring the differences between the DNC and RNC delegate rules and their practical effects.
posted by zachlipton at 12:24 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


In case you missed it.
Satanists are furious that Boehner compared Ted Cruz to the Dark Lord
When asked by the Friendly Atheist, Satanic Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves bashed Cruz.

“Cruz’s failures of reason, compassion, decency, and humanity are products of his Christian pandering, if not an actual Christian faith,” Greaves responded. “It grows tedious when pedophile priests and loathsome politicians are conveniently dismissed as Satanic, even as they spew biblical verse and prostrate themselves before the cross, recruiting the Christian faithful. Satanists will have nothing to do with any of them.”

posted by dougzilla at 12:29 PM on April 28, 2016 [25 favorites]




"Every day, I immersed him in prayer, asking God to protect him and grant him wisdom."

Dude, that was't prayer you were immersing him in, it was that red shit from Gostbusters II!
posted by happyroach at 12:40 PM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah I have to say that when I see Ted Cruz and hear him and the experience of those near him I am not thinking him, who in the happy Realms of Light cloth'd with transcendent brightness didst out-shine cyriads though bright. More Gollum and incoherent grunting.
posted by phearlez at 12:45 PM on April 28, 2016


From infini's second link:
“Surely he can’t win the nomination,” said a top official in one UN agency before a formal lunch hosted by Ban, only to be told by a colleague that the US political ground was shifting and, yes, Trump was very likely to be the Republican nominee. “Well he certainly won’t win the general election against Hillary [Clinton],” the top official responded decisively. He compared the situation to France over recent decades, where centrists of different stripes came together to block the far-right Front National from winning the presidency.

“People from the centre will stop him. Normal Republicans would rather vote for Hillary. Surely it won’t happen,” the senior official said, and his colleagues nodded.
I sure hope you are right, Nameless Senior Official. *gulp*
posted by wenestvedt at 12:45 PM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]




Bobby Knight: Like Truman, Trump would have 'guts to drop the bomb'

Um, Truman may have flirted with, but did not authorize, use of nuclear weapons in Korea even when UN forces were on the run from the Chinese counterattack.
posted by Gelatin at 12:53 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


“Cruz isn't some supernatural agent of darkness from beyond the grave come to destroy God's favored nation. Ted Cruz isn't the eternal foe of truth and light and America loving Jesus. Ted Cruz is a selfish, self-centered self-aggrandizing egotistical war mongering religious nutbar.

“Ted Cruz is just an asshole - one of far too many these days.”—Jim Wright
posted by ob1quixote at 1:02 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Um, Truman may have flirted with, but did not authorize, use of nuclear weapons in Korea even when UN forces were on the run from the Chinese counterattack.

He did authorize use of nuclear weapons in Japan, though.
posted by Etrigan at 1:04 PM on April 28, 2016


He did authorize use of nuclear weapons in Japan, though.

True, but that program was well under way under FDR -- if memory serves me correctly, Truman wasn't aware of the Manhattan Project until being briefed upon Roosevelt's death. And his not trusting MacArthur to fully grasp the implications of using them was apparently a factor in his later restraint.

In short, Truman was a man of contrasts Republican rhetoric is stupid.
posted by Gelatin at 1:10 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I don't want to go full bore into a Truman derail, and he was clearly a man of parts, but...Truman wouldn't give Bobby Knight the time of day.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:23 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


> "Cruz isn't some supernatural agent of darkness from beyond the grave come to destroy God's favored nation. Ted Cruz isn't the eternal foe of truth and light and America loving Jesus. Ted Cruz is a selfish, self-centered self-aggrandizing egotistical war mongering religious nutbar."

I'm not confident that Republicans won't vote for the latter. I'm slightly (slightly) more confident they won't vote for the former. I say keep spreading the meme.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:28 PM on April 28, 2016


Yeah, I don't want to go full bore into a Truman derail

TRUMAN!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:32 PM on April 28, 2016


yikes, Paul Manafort is a scary dude
posted by angrycat at 1:33 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


And James Earl and Leslie Lynch King Jr. and Thomas Woodrow and Ike and do we really need to continue to make fun of people for wanting to go by something other than what's on their birth certificates just because we don't like them?

I don't know what you're talking about, because nicknames are awesome. And I would totally vote for a President Leslie.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:47 PM on April 28, 2016


"And I would totally vote for a President Leslie."

History fact bomb: Leslie Lynch King was the name of Ford's abusive birth father who threatened to kill his mother and infant Ford with a knife when Ford was about 10 days old, leading to her fleeing across state lines with her 16-day-old baby in the dead of night to escape him (back when states didn't enforce custody orders across state lines), and pursuing a divorce when that was very difficult and scandalous. When Ford was three, his mother married Gerald R. Ford, Sr., who adopted the little boy as his own (still somewhat unusual in those days, especially with the father still living) and gave the boy his name, to signal that Gerry Jr. was his "real" son and to erase the name of the horrifically abusive step father. (Who didn't turn up in Ford's life again until he heard Ford got a scholarship to play football at Michigan, and then turned up asking for money. CLASS ACT.) All the pictures you see of Gerry Ford with his parents in the White House are his ridiculously brave mom and his kick-ass stepdad. Leslie Lynch King has no place there.

So don't call him Leslie not because it's a silly name or anything (it's a fine name) but because Ford affirmatively chose as his father the man who raised him in kindness and love and who gave his step-son his name.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:00 PM on April 28, 2016 [59 favorites]


Mocking Bobby Jindal as "Piyush" is particularly grating to me.
posted by zutalors! at 2:01 PM on April 28, 2016 [11 favorites]


And I would totally vote for a President Leslie.

Knope!
posted by phearlez at 2:06 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, it wasn't meant to be othering, given that other Republicans with aliases were named. He wasn't singled out. Though I can certainly see the connection there to times when it was used in such a way. Well, I apologize for bringing it up in the first place, where it could be construed as such.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:20 PM on April 28, 2016


So I finally decided to donate after being offered my very own Official Hillary for America Woman Card. So glad to see her taking full advantage of this.
posted by galvanized unicorn at 2:26 PM on April 28, 2016 [25 favorites]


Just completing the joke, the card has the appearance of a MetroCard.
posted by zachlipton at 2:29 PM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


If only CarlyFiorinaForVicePresident.com offered similar incentives.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:29 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


I got the Woman Card email. HRCs campaign has a great sense of humor.
posted by zutalors! at 2:41 PM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, the 404 page is a nice piece of self-deprecating humor as well.
posted by dersins at 2:45 PM on April 28, 2016 [11 favorites]


Hilary Clinton is the only Presidential candidate who has committed to attend an event by the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies Leadership Network, which works to get more Asian Americans elected to office.
posted by zutalors! at 2:46 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yeah, the 404 page is a nice piece of self-deprecating humor as well.

I love that page. :)
posted by zarq at 2:50 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think her campaign stumbled when they were trying to make her seem cool. Now that they are celebrating her glorious dorkiness it's working a lot better.
posted by schroedinger at 3:01 PM on April 28, 2016 [29 favorites]


It just seems like that frequently mentioned thing with her - people hate her when she's trying to get a job, and then love her when she has it. Right now she basically has the job of Democratic nominee - they'll hate her again when trying to get the job of President-Elect.
posted by zutalors! at 3:07 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ha, that woman card thing got me. I just donated. Well, that plus realizing that I'm eligible to donate to US political campaigns now, as a green card holder.
posted by peacheater at 3:13 PM on April 28, 2016


Yeah, I find Piyush as offensive as the endless Barack Hussein Obama or BHO babbling from some of the right. Can we not?

So don't call him Leslie not because it's a silly name or anything (it's a fine name) but because Ford affirmatively chose as his father the man who raised him in kindness and love and who gave his step-son his name.

Amazingly, I'd never heard that story. Makes me feel bad for Ford that he had such a crappy 2 years in office.
posted by dw at 3:15 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


'It's gone from funny to really scary'
One British diplomat cringed at the idea of both men rising to the top of the political food chain in their respective countries. “Imagine a UK-US summit in the future, with President Trump coming to visit Prime Minister Johnson in a rump Britain, without Scotland, which has left after Brexit,” the diplomat said. “It ought to be unthinkable, but it’s not unthinkable. Not anymore.”
Jesus tap dancing Christ. We're doomed as a species, aren't we?
posted by Talez at 3:23 PM on April 28, 2016



John Boehner Calls Ted Cruz ‘Lucifer in the Flesh’


Cruz has been using this a selling point. Which I guess sort of makes sense, I don't get the idea that Boehner is very popular with Republicans.

I guess if you're trying to out-anti-establishment Trump, the idea that all the other Republicans hate you could be a "plus".

(But, when you're a Senator trying to out-anti-establishment someone who has never been in politics, that seems like a pretty uphill battle...)
posted by thefoxgod at 3:27 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


It just seems like that frequently mentioned thing with her - people hate her when she's trying to get a job, and then love her when she has it.

Oh, I don't think it's an accident that the most effective campaign strategy is one that would emphasize her foibles and relatable human weaknesses over her competence and leadership capabilities. Men get to be Cool Obama, Strongman Trump, Prophet Cruz, or Revolutionary Leader Sanders. When Clinton tries on those hats she's besieged by people trying to knock her down a peg.
posted by schroedinger at 3:34 PM on April 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


I fear the HRC people know me so well my payment info is memorized, but I got in again for my Woman Card. I love Clinton's sense of humor, and I loved the way she delivered her "deal me in!" riposte.
posted by bearwife at 3:34 PM on April 28, 2016


they'll hate her again when trying to get the job of President-Elect

maybe it's that ambitious women are icky thing
posted by angrycat at 3:34 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


(personally I like Competent Clinton and Dorky Clinton because I'm a hopeless dork who dreams of competence)
posted by schroedinger at 3:35 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


(personally I like Competent Clinton and Dorky Clinton because I'm a hopeless dork who dreams of competence)

She is truly the Ben Wyatt of this political season.
posted by stolyarova at 3:37 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


In case anyone wants a whole deck of Woman Cards! (Warning: Kickstarter page)
posted by chaoticgood at 3:54 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


She is truly the Ben Wyatt of this political season.

C'mon, she's totally Leslie Knope. Or technically Leslie Knope is her.
posted by schroedinger at 4:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]


that said: I would donate so much money to see her in a high quality Batman suit
posted by schroedinger at 4:19 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


She's more a Ben personality-wise than a Leslie. Bill is Leslie - friendly, energetic, married to the policy wonk. I wouldn't want to play Cones of Dunshire against her, that's for sure.
posted by stolyarova at 4:21 PM on April 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


Leslie Knope is Joe Biden

is that how I play this game
posted by zutalors! at 4:43 PM on April 28, 2016


I feel like it's easy to see Clinton as Knope because Amy Poehler plays both of them.
posted by zutalors! at 4:43 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


We're doomed as a species, aren't we?

It could be worse. They could be accompanied by Prime Minister Ford.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:58 PM on April 28, 2016


I fear the HRC people know me so well my payment info is memorized

Wait, it's not?? Because the Sanders people (well, ActBlue) saves my payment information so that I can donate with one click from their emails. Clinton's not doing that? Because she really should. I'n sure I've given Bernie more because it was so easy to just click the one button.
posted by Weeping_angel at 5:24 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


No, they absolutely offer to save your payment info (but I don't think its required or anything).
posted by thefoxgod at 5:51 PM on April 28, 2016


One of my most recent emails read: "You’re one of our most committed supporters. Because you've saved your payment information, your donation will go through immediately!"

And sometimes it suggests I "chip in" {$2700 - $AMOUNT_I_DONATED_SO_FAR} :)
posted by thefoxgod at 5:53 PM on April 28, 2016




angrycat, thanks for the Slate link, which includes this: "Despite his Yankee stock, Manafort ran Reagan’s Southern operation, the racially tinged appeal that infamously began in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the hamlet where civil rights activists were murdered in 1964."
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:05 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump in Costa Mesa (live stream)
posted by pjmoy at 7:08 PM on April 28, 2016


Trump in Costa Mesa (live stream)

FJT, did you end up going?
posted by stolyarova at 7:13 PM on April 28, 2016


Few protesters were visible in the crowd of red shirts and hats worn by Trump supporters. Some brought American flags, and others dressed up in their military uniforms.
I thought wearing a military uniform to a political rally was a giant nono.
posted by Talez at 7:24 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


Talez, only if you're an active servicemember, as I understand it. Once you're discharged, it's allowed.
posted by stolyarova at 7:28 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, I'm watching the livestream and it's a sea of vanilla. I don't see a single non-white person.
posted by stolyarova at 7:29 PM on April 28, 2016


Also, people who support Trump, while not necessarily bad human beings, are pretty much by definition not prone to making smart choices.
posted by dersins at 7:30 PM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


b. Former Members of the Armed Forces. Unless qualified under another provision of this Order or under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 772, former members who served honorably during a declared or undeclared war and whose most recent service was terminated under honorable conditions may wear the uniform in the highest grade held during such war service only upon the following occasions and in the course of travel incident thereto:

(1) Military funerals, memorial services, weddings, and inaugurals.

(2) Parades on national or state holidays; or other parades or ceremonies of a patriotic character in which any active or reserve United States military unit is taking part.

'Wearing of the uniform or any part thereof at any other time or for any purpose is prohibited.'
I'm pretty sure that you can't wear the uniform to a rally even if you're retired.
posted by Talez at 7:37 PM on April 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVES PERTAINING TO UNIFORMS
Implementing 10 U.S.C. 772, the President, by Executive Order 10554 of 18 August 1954, delegated to the Secretary of Defense the authority to prescribe regulations under which persons may wear the uniform. The following excerpts from DoD Directive 1334.1 of 11 August 1969 outline these regulations:
a. Members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of reserve components). The wearing of the uniform is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

(1) At any meeting or demonstration which is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons which the Attorney General of the United States has designated, pursuant to E.O. 10450, as amended as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under The Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

(2) During or in connection with the furtherance of political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest could be drawn.


Yep. It's hella bad to wear your uniform to a rally even if you're retired.
posted by Talez at 7:39 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


Is anybody watching the stream of the Trump rally? Who is the guy speaking right now? You could not have written a better parody of this kind of speech.
posted by dersins at 7:39 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


I stand corrected. Thank you, Talez - good to know.
posted by stolyarova at 7:40 PM on April 28, 2016


I'm watching the stream. When that guy promised retribution against 'illegals' I got shivers down my spine. So, so much violent othering going on.
posted by stolyarova at 7:42 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, the business with the "Angel Moms" could literally have been lifted from a rally in Germany in the late 1930's.
posted by dersins at 7:46 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


So apparently our uniformed friend is also wearing his uniform in his Linked In profile.

How do you even report stuff like this? Corb?
posted by Talez at 7:49 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump: "Crime numbers are going through the roof!"

Meanwhile, back in the real world...
posted by stolyarova at 7:53 PM on April 28, 2016


If you have pictures of people with name tapes/rank/fruit salad, I'm friends with a guy who lives for this kind of stuff.
posted by corb at 8:22 PM on April 28, 2016 [8 favorites]


Once you're discharged, though, does the DoD rule still apply to you? Is it really criminal code stuff? I just don't understand the...enforcement mechanism or jurisdiction or whatever. (Still in favor of keeping uniforms and politics as far apart as possible!)
posted by wenestvedt at 8:25 PM on April 28, 2016


CM techies (and LATimes techies): we look like idiots. What's with the piss-poor sound?
posted by pjmoy at 8:32 PM on April 28, 2016


Ugh, the wink-wink nod-nod on LA crime stats is pretty gross. He just quotes the stats and immedately the crowd starts chanting "Build the Wall" and Trump's like "I know what's behind that" .

(It is true that violent crime is up for the second year in a row after many, many years of decline)

posted by thefoxgod at 8:38 PM on April 28, 2016


FJT, did you end up going?

Yes, kind of. I decided not to try for tickets because it was probably too late to get them and having watched Trump speeches online, I felt it wasn't a good idea for my blood pressure to watch someone speak that I didn't really like at all. So, I just kind of went to see what the crowds were doing, but I left before the event finished, which looks like a good idea since apparently it's getting kind of nuts down there.
posted by FJT at 9:03 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


His concession rally in November is going to be a fucking horror show.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:17 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Guardian: Slavoj Žižek: 'Trump is really a centrist liberal'
posted by Apocryphon at 9:28 PM on April 28, 2016


The Guardian: Slavoj Žižek: 'Trump is really a centrist liberal

Žižek, the plagiarist, is a lazy thinker, and lacks a keen attention to detail. His only intellectual weapon is the constant, frenetic pace at which he produces what sadly passes for philosophical thought today, mostly warmed over Lacanian marxism, the same tropes repeated constantly, one unconnected paragraph after another. This is only further proof of his intellectual bankruptcy. Whatever Trump is, he's not a centrist liberal. It would be more rational to say that he holds no principles whatever, besides his own self-advancement. But it wouldn't play into the narrative constantly reconstructed by the Great Slavoj.
posted by dis_integration at 9:51 PM on April 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


The last part from the above.

While always happy to provoke the liberal left with his support for the death penalty or a call for the “militarisation” of Europe’s response to the refugee crisis – by which, to be clear, he means deploying the military in something like its capacity for disaster relief, as opposed to armed intervention – Žižek never fails to return to what, in the end, amounts to a fairly modest set of proposals.

Chiefly, that the emancipatory left must engage in the process of reform, and demand what is
prima facie politically and economically possible within the current system, but nonetheless designated impossible for ideological reasons. The example of this, he returns to time and again, being the introduction of universal healthcare in the US – an achievement worthy of the highest praise for Obama and countless thousands of Americans who worked to realise it over decades, but not one that can be linked categorically to the radical left.

All of this begs the question: could it be that Žižek is really not so different to Trump? Both thrive on their quotability, knowing full well how easily so much of what they say can provoke outrage when read out of context; and both of them are, in their own very different ways, what the press loves to call “big personalities”.

What if, after all of the dirty jokes and PC-baiting is put to one side, it turns out that the man himself is, like Trump, just another wooly liberal trying to shock us into thinking otherwise.


The Guardian: Žižek is really a reformist liberal.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:51 PM on April 28, 2016


But it wouldn't play into the narrative constantly reconstructed by the Great Slavoj.

‏@realDonaldTrump:
@slavojzizek says I'm a liberal, but he's just a sad Lacan imitator -- total loser!
posted by dw at 10:14 PM on April 28, 2016 [11 favorites]


This is all very kayfabe, isn't it?
posted by dersins at 10:30 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


His concession rally in November is going to be a fucking horror show.

It's quaint you think he's going to admit to a loss and concede. The real horror show might be him working up crowds with claims that the entire Electoral College was rigged to make him lose.

Slavoj Žižek: 'Trump is really a centrist liberal'

Žižek will say anything to get a rise out of people; it's kind of his job, right?
posted by aught at 6:01 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Zizek is saying the same stuff that a lot of people on mefi and elsewhere have been saying about Trump, though - what President Trump would actually look like, policywise, is really fucking hard to predict and could conceivably be... not the worst presidency America ever produced? It might end up being a pretty unremarkable centrist government whose campaign-trail nods-to-fascism kind of peter out. Of course, it might also be literal death camps with long knives and crystal nights. The dude is such a vague, inexperienced, stupid and bumbling wild card that it's hard to say with total certainty how his administration would go on the day-to-day. (which actually reminds me of how I felt at the prospect of a W-Bush presidency)

I guess the big difference between Zizek and me is that Zizek is willing to state that he has full confidence in the Trump-being-not-so-bad scenario and I tend to lean more towards extreme anxiety about the potential for things to turn into a total fucking trashfire. (During the Bush years, I worried about various worst-case scenarios, and not only did most of them come true, but awful stuff like privatizing Social Security proved I was not imagining terrible ENOUGH ideas)

Either way, though, I'm not nearly as scared of President Trump himself as I am of the huge percentage of Americans for whom his racist and pro-authoritarian messages resonate. Whether Trump is a good president or not is just as moot on that front as whether Trump wins or not; no matter which outcome happens, those people are still there, continuing to whip themselves into a frenzy. That's the thing I find way more unsettling, and I'm surprised that a masses-studying communist like Zizek didn't focus more on that terror, choosing to instead focus on the terror's current figurehead.
posted by Greg Nog at 6:31 AM on April 29, 2016 [24 favorites]


what President Trump would actually look like, policywise, is really fucking hard to predict and could conceivably be... not the worst presidency America ever produced?

Considering we only recently endured the dumpster fire that was the George W. Bush administration, that isn't exactly a high bar.
posted by Gelatin at 6:44 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


The problem is that with President Trump, we'll almost certainly get a Republican Congress, and I don't see any reason Trump wouldn't sign any harebrained legislation the Tea Party crowd wants passed.
posted by Gelatin at 6:49 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump Camp To Target Sanders Voters Who Won't Back Clinton

Bernie Bros for Trump
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:30 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie Bros for Trump
Trump has long claimed his ability to garner support from Democrats and independents, but a recent poll found just 13 percent of Democratic-leaning voters who support Sanders have a favorable view of the outspoken billionaire.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:33 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Gelatin, yup. There's no reason at all to imagine that he won't rubberstamp anything that comes out of Congress, and right now that means a lot of truly awful Teabagger crap.

They'll overturn Obamacare, repeal the Voting Rights Act entirely, possibly even repeal the Civil Rights Act on libertarian oppressive to business grounds, ram through massive tax cuts, privatize Social Security, slash medicare and medicaid, pass a blanket abortion ban, etc all while passing huge increases to the military budget and, doubtless, starting a new war or three in the Middle East.

Plus, of course, approving whatever worse than Scalia Liberty University graduates Trump decides to replace Scalia, Ginsburg, and Breyer with.

The only possible hope would be a Democratic filibuster, and that just plain won't happen. The Senate Democrats lack the spine to filibuster anything, and even if they did the Republicans would just scrap the filibuster entirely.

So basically we either defeat the Republican nominee, whoever it is, or we get ready to see the Republicans do to America what they did to Kansas.
posted by sotonohito at 8:21 AM on April 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


So basically we either defeat the Republican nominee, whoever it is, or we get ready to see the Republicans do to America what they did to Kansas.

And wouldn't I love to see the Democrats use exactly that line of attack in the general election -- push the Overton window back on deacdes of supply-side nonsense and point out that Republican economics simply don't work.
posted by Gelatin at 8:39 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


There are valid reasons to fear the rise of Trump, but rubber stamping the Republican establishment is not one of them.
posted by corb at 8:39 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


...Obviously you need inspiration too. But if you don't want your followers to give up in disgust, your inspiration needs to be in service of goals that are at least attainable. By offering a chimera instead, Bernie has done the progressive movement no favors.
Here's Why I Never Warmed Up to Bernie Sanders
posted by y2karl at 8:41 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


There are valid reasons to fear the rise of Trump, but rubber stamping the Republican establishment is not one of them.

Yeah, that's what I thought six years ago when I voted for Rick Snyder. I. Was. Wrong. I have zero doubt that Trump will follow the Snyder Agenda in detail: Push for economic stuff because he thinks he knows what's best, let the Legislature do whatever the fuck else it wants to do as long as it falls in line on the economic stuff.
posted by Etrigan at 8:43 AM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


There are valid reasons to fear the rise of Trump, but rubber stamping the Republican establishment is not one of them.

Let's not kid ourselves here. In terms of economics, it is 100% valid, considering that if anything Trump's economic team seems to think that the horrors we're seeing wrought by the GOP budgeting practices of places like Kansas and Oklahoma are merely a jumping-off point.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:46 AM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


There are valid reasons to fear the rise of Trump, but rubber stamping the Republican establishment is not one of them.

Who said anything about rubber-stamping the Republican establishment? The so-called "freedom caucus" of radical conservatives has a stranglehold on the Republican House majority and the deathly fear of a primary challenge from the right is causing Senate Republicans to engage in unprecedented obstructionism of a Supreme Court nominee.

Again, if Trump is elected, it's almost certain the Republicans would keep the Senate, too, and it's unlikely they'd lose the Hose Trump or no Trump. So the question is, would Trump sign the legislation -- sotonohito just provided a likely rundown -- a Republican Congress passes, or won't he? I see no reason to believe he would veto anything on sotonohito's list.
posted by Gelatin at 8:48 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Here's Why I Never Warmed Up to Bernie Sanders

That link has a typo but here's the correct one
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:50 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I suspect that Kevin Drum will be putting up Friday Cat Blogging REAL soon.
posted by maudlin at 8:54 AM on April 29, 2016


Cortex fixed it in an instant after I timed out trying to do so. My hero!
posted by y2karl at 8:54 AM on April 29, 2016


There are valid reasons to fear the rise of Trump, but rubber stamping the Republican establishment is not one of them.

Trump, Rush and the Teabagger Freedom Caucus are the Republican establishment starting now, they control the entire party agenda, not Paul Ryan or anyone to left of Ryan.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:57 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Here's Why I Never Warmed Up to Bernie Sanders

I don't find this article to be super convincingly written, but it HAS been driving me up the wall to see Sanders partisans insist that they refuse to participate in such a corrupt system as the American presidential election if Sanders can't win. Which, like. Yeah, it's a corrupt system. A corrupt system which, by the nature of its corruption, affords us with exactly two options, one of which is so obviously worse than the other that I cannot believe people are totally cool with ignoring it just cause it's "not fair." Sure it's not fair! It's still the way things work and nothing we can do in the next handful of months will make it any more fair than it is! Opting out will do literally nothing to change it, but it sure might result in President Trump!

Ugh I need to stay off fucking Facebook for a while
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:58 AM on April 29, 2016 [24 favorites]


If Trump's rhetoric matches his administration's policies, I would hope that we'd see a diminution of the neocon empire building and war making that we saw from the GWB administration.

More isolationism and less foreign intervention would be a great way to save the lives of our military and reduce our tax burden.
posted by theorique at 8:59 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


A corrupt system which, by the nature of its corruption, affords us with exactly two options, one of which is so obviously worse than the other that I cannot believe people are totally cool with ignoring it just cause it's "not fair."

And barely more than a decade since a similar "not a dime's worth of difference" attitude helped give the nation George W. Bush. And all that that implies.
posted by Gelatin at 9:02 AM on April 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


More isolationism and less foreign intervention would be a great way to save the lives of our military and reduce our tax burden.

Lives, maybe. I've yet to see evidence that lack of war results in less military spending. There's a reason why the big defense contractors have offices where they do.
posted by snickerdoodle at 9:09 AM on April 29, 2016


Henry Krinkle:
fact that Trump demonizes the Iran deal should be enough to show he isn't anti-war i mean ffs people.

oh wow he opposes "nation building" real fucking impressive. but he still supports sending ground troops to Syria.

saying you oppose "nation building" after the Iraq War is the same as saying you oppose cancer. no bravery required.

and Trump only came out against the Iraq War after it was clearly a disaster.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:10 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


corb There are valid reasons to fear the rise of Trump, but rubber stamping the Republican establishment is not one of them.

Well, corb, you're a Republican so naturally you wouldn't think so. But as someone who thinks that the Republican agenda is a terrible one, I do.

The only thing I find actually frightening about Trump is the way he's encouraging violence, the rest of his crap is just standard Republicanism minus the veil of dogwhistles they use to pretend that their policies aren't basically rooted in white supremacy and misogyny. The very few policy positions he's released are more moderate than those form Cruz.

The one thing he preaches I don't take seriously at all is his isolationism, and ironically while I'm not an isolationist I do find that to be his most appealing talking point (like saying it's the best looking turd in the cesspool, but still). Nothing gets the Republicans going like a good opportunity to bomb the shit out of some brown people, and there's no way he won't start at least one more Middle Eastern war during his term. Mind, I'm pretty sure Clinton will too, it isn't like she ever met a war she didn't love.

But why would Trump veto any of the stuff I suggested? Hell, most of it is straight from his speeches.

The big difference I see is that while Trump, being bored and detached from the whole thing, would just appoint bog standard right wing lunatics to the Court, Cruz would be appointing very specific lunatics who would do their absolute best to impose Christian Sharia on America, beginning with a full abortion ban and re-criminalizing homosexuality.

Cruz terrifies me from a policy and brains standpoint, the man is a devoted theocrat who really does, openly, seek to impose Christian religious law on America, in addition to the standard (and from my POV) utterly evil Republican agenda.

While Trump is just a bored opportunist who only scares me because of the violence he's advocating.
posted by sotonohito at 9:10 AM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


If Trump's rhetoric matches his administration's policies, I would hope that we'd see a diminution of the neocon empire building and war making that we saw from the GWB administration.

His rhetoric would mean just as much intervention. He wants to deploy 30,000 soldiers to fight ISIS, increase efforts to target ISIS by going after their friends and family, which realistically means an even larger drone warfare program. At the same time he wants the US out of NATO, which means he wants to remove one organization where we can work together with Europe on.

You also need an even larger security apparatus to keep people out of the country and deport even more of those who you don't want in. And getting into a scuffle with China over the Spratly's, while alienating South Korea and Japan isn't going to help things either.

Do you expect people to just fall in when Trump attempts to bully them? And what if they say, "Oh yeah, what are you going to do about it?" Do you think Trump's promises of non-intervention would be kept, or would he use intervention as another negotiating tool?
posted by FJT at 9:10 AM on April 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


the rest of his crap is just standard Republicanism minus the veil of dogwhistles they use to pretend that their policies aren't basically rooted in white supremacy and misogyny.

You forgot Poland plutocracy.
posted by Gelatin at 9:17 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


(But otherwise, yeah; I've said before that the problem the Republican establishment has with Trump is that he says the quiet part loud. Look how eager the so-called "liberal media" was to jump on that "Trump will pivot to a more presidential temperament for the general election!" leak.)
posted by Gelatin at 9:18 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


No American president has gone without a military intervention since at least William Henry Harrison. To expect that Trump -- or Sanders -- won't intervene in anything militarily is naïve. Sanders himself said he'd use drones to fight ISIS. Trump is talking about putting boots on the ground.
posted by dw at 9:19 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Look how eager the so-called "liberal media" was to jump on that "Trump will pivot to a more presidential temperament for the general election!" leak.

The morning after his recent incoherent foreign policy speech, the gist of the CBS news reporting was about how "presidential" he sounded—zero analysis of the actual content of his blatherings. In the coming months, we're going to be hearing a lot about "tone", "momentum", "likeability", etc., but very little about ideas, policy, or governance.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:45 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


If Trump's rhetoric matches his administration's policies, I would hope that we'd see a diminution of the neocon empire building and war making that we saw from the GWB administration.

Well it matches insofar as Mr. Regime Change is the same guy who while campaigning also said "I am not a nation-builder." An American candidate proclaiming that now is an ironclad guarantee of "I would be in favor of no more than two simultaneous pacification-conquest wars, plus a little light Global War on Terror on the side. Just a proclamation of a list of America's enemies accompanied by an international network of secret prison-slash-torture facilities and a few roving fleets of flying killer robots to keep them in line, nothing beyond that."
posted by XMLicious at 9:50 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


That was pretty much the reaction on CBC radio, too. I just cannot listen to their news any more.
posted by maudlin at 9:51 AM on April 29, 2016


The morning after his recent incoherent foreign policy speech, the gist of the CBS news reporting was about how "presidential" he sounded—zero analysis of the actual content of his blatherings.

Ditto from ABC. Not even a trivial criticism like commenting on his inability to pronounce Tanzania.

The news media has really been a giant fail on Trump. They award him endless amounts of free air time but never do any serious scrutiny.
posted by bearwife at 9:51 AM on April 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


I feel like the media is going to want to make this look like a race. I don't think we'll have a race here. I might just be being optimistic, but Trump just doesn't have that much real support. And there isn't some great Republican figure who will really come out and trumpet for him. Paul Ryan might, but that would just hurt his chances later.

Meanwhile, I think once the Obama/Biden lights turn on around convention time, that'll be a huge thing for the Democrats.
posted by zutalors! at 9:53 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I agree, zutalors! but I still think the media should do its job.

FYI, all, no idea if this will be of any moment at all in Indiana, but Governor Mike Pence just endorsed Cruz.
posted by bearwife at 9:55 AM on April 29, 2016


The news media has really been a giant fail on Trump. They award him endless amounts of free air time but never do any serious scrutiny.

And then he turns around and bashes the media in his stump speeches -- in front of audiences who have been fed that decades-long Republican marketing campaign for so long they consider it gospel truth -- for any coverage of his many gaffes and ridiculous statements.
posted by Gelatin at 9:56 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Trump's rhetoric matches his administration's policies

Trump's rhetoric on any given day barely matches his rhetoric from the previous day, but okay.

More isolationism and less foreign intervention would be a great way to save the lives of our military and reduce our tax burden.

It does, but you were talking about Donald Trump, so I don't see how that's relevant.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:19 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


The minute Trump felt remotely offended by a foreign dignitary or group he'd be sending in troops left and right and agitating for war. The man is completely unbalanced. He has no opinions, just words he thinks will net him ratings and poll numbers.
posted by schroedinger at 10:27 AM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


What is it with isolationism? It hasn't exactly worked well when previous countries have attempted it (Japan and China, for example). And it's usually only feasible for big countries, because small countries have always been forced to be good at listening and working with other people in order to survive.
posted by FJT at 10:40 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think its relative success is probably more a function of geographic (physical) isolation than size. It's hard to be isolationist for long when your neighbors keep invading.

Being an island helps with that, or mountainous (hi, Switzerland), or surrounded by deserts (ancient Egypt) or oceans (19th and early 20th c. US).

I don't really know enough to make much of a statement on this, but it's not clear to me that isolationism in, say, Japan and Korea were particularly worse for them than the history of much of the rest of the world during the modern period as Europeans colonized and exploited pretty much everywhere else.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:54 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah. I mean the United States is a) large; b) geographically isolated; c) well off economically. Much more than most countries it is at least somewhat able to turn its back on the world.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:27 AM on April 29, 2016


There's a significant scene going on in Burlingame, CA where Trump and other candidates are set to speak at the CA GOP convention. Live Twitter updates at that link.
posted by zachlipton at 11:30 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]




Before I clicked that "liberal case for Donald Trump" link I said to myself "I bet the author is a very young, white, male Sanders supporter". Clicked link. Sighed. Yup.
posted by Justinian at 11:52 AM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Salon seems to like the Donald.
A liberal case for Donald Trump: The lesser of two evils is not at all clear in 2016 --- Is there one? A Trump presidency needn't be a nightmare for the left. On many issues, Clinton presidency might be


Wow. This Walker Bragman dude might want to make a doctor's appointment. Seems he's got himself a nasty case of Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:54 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


I would assume he's just trolling, if it weren't for all the people I've had to unfollow on Facebook.
posted by dersins at 11:57 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Salon's always been up and down but they've really gone down a steep slope in the last few years.
posted by octothorpe at 11:57 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Salon has one thing right. Trump could actually run to the left of Clinton.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:03 PM on April 29, 2016


> "Salon has one thing right. Trump could actually run to the left of Clinton."

Hahahahahaha no.
posted by kyrademon at 12:05 PM on April 29, 2016 [29 favorites]


Yeah, that's absurd.
posted by Justinian at 12:09 PM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yes, punishing women for abortions is a really lefty position.

Man that Wonkette article was satisfying.
posted by zutalors! at 12:11 PM on April 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


So Robert Reich is still saying Sanders has a shot, the Dem race isn't over? But then he kind of segues into how the campaign for the progressive platform isn't over. I'm with him on the latter, but the former seems virtually impossible at this point, no?
posted by bardophile at 12:12 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


He's already left of her on medical marijuana, and was on free trade until she was Sandersed.

That said, he's as greasy as her so I doubt he'd do it, but I've underestimated him before.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:13 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


No, forreals, Trump could run to the left of Clinton. He'd just have to abandon pretty much everything he's said so far and his own history and the party nominating him.

Also, it's possible I could ask Jennifer Lawrence out on a date.
posted by dw at 12:13 PM on April 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


the former seems virtually impossible at this point, no?

Wow, that lacks imagination. Okay, first, imagine a zipline running from Sanders HQ to the convention. Now, presume Skeletor kidnaps Clinton,
posted by Greg Nog at 12:13 PM on April 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


I am so tired of the "well at least Trump would blow the whole system up and we really need a change" argument. It's always made by people in a position of privilege with the absolute least to loose. At a time when basic human and civil rights protections are threatened already, "hey how bad can it really be?" is just not an acceptable thing to be asking. Your belief that we need political reform and your concern that Clinton isn't the one to bring it does not erase the fact that Trump, in his own words, wants the forced migration of 11 million people, to punish women for having abortions, to ban over a billion people from the country on the basis of their religion, and on and on and on...

Turning the country into a garbage fire in the hope that something better comes out of the ashes punishes a lot of folks with a lot more to lose in the meantime, if it ever works out. Hate Clinton all you want if you really feel compelled to, but don't channel that hate for her into something that does real harm to a lot of people.
posted by zachlipton at 12:14 PM on April 29, 2016 [21 favorites]


he's as greasy as her

what does this even supposed to mean, like seriously
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:14 PM on April 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


Salon has one thing right. Trump could actually run to the left of Clinton.

He'd have to change his positions on immigration, guns, poverty, net neutrality, tax regulation, the economy, civil rights including women's rights and gay rights, all sorts of environmental issues including global warming, energy, eminent domain, abortion, healthcare....

But sure, it could happen.
posted by zarq at 12:15 PM on April 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


Also, it's possible I could ask Jennifer Lawrence out on a date.

You can ask....
posted by zarq at 12:16 PM on April 29, 2016


what does this even supposed to mean, like seriously

What is TPP? Is that even a word?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:17 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


He's already left of her on medical marijuana, and was on free trade until she was Sandersed.

The free trade point is arguable. Trump says he would rip up the free trade deals, and it sounds more based on nationalism than a leftist position. And it's unclear what they would replace trade deals with and whether Trump would give consideration to environmental protection and worker safety, which are important points the Left emphasized on reworking international trade. And is "international cooperation" a left or right position? Because "ripping" up trade deals would probably upset other countries.
posted by FJT at 12:20 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I accidentally stumbled on a Bernie Sanders subreddit the other day and read one of those "Wait, I think I have the math worked out to get Bernie the nomination!"

I don't know what was more unreal, Bernie winning Indiana by 10 (he's currently down by 5), Bernie winning California by nearly 40, or a 50-50 split in DC.

It really is getting to ziplines and Skeletor territory for the true believers.
posted by dw at 12:24 PM on April 29, 2016


I am in favor of drug legalization. I'll start with that. But to say that Trump could run to the left of Clinton because he's left of her on medical marijuana is like saying that I might win next year's World Series of Poker because I once successfully bluffed a semi-pro player at a $10/$20 table in Atlantic City. Like... it's kind of relevant but so insufficient and small that it's crazy talk.
posted by Justinian at 12:25 PM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think Wonkette, besides totally nailing every stupid thing in that Salon piece -- and there are a lot! -- did a wonderful summary right up front of all that is insane about it:

Why not vote for Donald Trump? He may be a fascist, but there is one thing about him you cannot deny, and that is that Donald Trump is not Hillary Clinton

The only thing that makes Trump capable of being perceived as running to the left of Clinton is the weird way fascists on the right and left (e.g. Stalin and Hitler) manage to resemble each other.

I may never read Salon again. It really has made itself into an online rag.
posted by bearwife at 12:25 PM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


To be clear, I'm not saying he'd run as a lefty. I'm saying he could run to the center and outflank her on some issues. Until she tactically shifts again, at least.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:28 PM on April 29, 2016


It really is getting to ziplines and Skeletor territory for the true believers.

That includes Jane Sanders. She's still convinced.
posted by zutalors! at 12:29 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


The only thing Sanders and Trump have in common on trade is they want to tear up the trade deals in order to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. Beyond that, though, there's just not a lot in common. As FJT pointed out, the new deals they would negotiate would almost be polar opposite in terms of labor, environment, and fair trade.

That said, Trump is trying to court Bernie voters.
posted by dw at 12:29 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I feel like Salon and Raw Story have flip-flopped, which says more about Salon's decline than anything Raw Story is doing right.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:29 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Both Trump and Sanders are protectionists, but Trump is a zero-sum mercantilist where Sanders is an EU-style social democrat. Trump is stuck in the 16th century economically. I shared the Candlemakers' Petition To Block The Sun with a Trump supporter recently and he unironically replied that it would be great for the economy if we could block the sun, but it just wasn't practical.
posted by stolyarova at 12:33 PM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Like Mr Burns!
posted by zutalors! at 12:35 PM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Salon has one thing right. Trump could actually run to the left of Clinton.

I don't think Trump could run to the left of Clinton, but I think he could definitely run a more populist campaign, which I think liberals and lefties are underestimating the threat of.

There seems to be a thought process I see going around of:

a. Trump and his open bigotry have made him immune in the primary campaign
b. Traditional campaigns have been useless against the Trump campaign
c. Wait'll a traditional Democratic campaign reveals his bigotry to the public
d. Dem landslide
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:35 PM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


I agree with Ray Walston, Luck Dragon - I think people are underestimating the temptation of populist rage and xenophobia in the general election. Trump's unfavorables with women and minorities are the only comfort I can find in the coming nationwide garbage barbecue.
posted by stolyarova at 12:38 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm saying he could run to the center and outflank her on some issues. Until she tactically shifts again, at least.

What the complete what?

Trump can move from the far right positions he holds to the center, and that would outflank Clinton's center-left positions? Your feet must be awfully sore, because you've got the shoes painted L and R on the wrong feet again.

It's also rather interesting that you think it's a smart strategic move for Trump to tactically shift from the far right to the center, but evidence of Clinton's deviousness and pandering if she moves from the progressive left toward the center.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:38 PM on April 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


That said, Trump is trying to court Bernie voters.

And he'll fail, because, amazingly, people who support the cranky old New Dealer who calls himself a socialist do not like the clownish would-be oligarch who wants herrenvolk democracy. Not that that will stop the hacks from writing 1,000 essays positing that Sanders supporters are crypto-Trump supporters.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:41 PM on April 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


In other news indicating how very far from left Trump is, the Anti-Defamation League is slamming him for using his foreign policy address to advocate "America First." That name has an infamous history, including the pre-WW II isolationist movement prominently represented by Charles Lindbergh and the more recent America First party formed by supporters of the oh-so-enlightened Pat Buchanan, whose platform is among other things anti-immigrant, anti-gay, and anti-abortion.
posted by bearwife at 12:42 PM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump's unfavorables with women and minorities are the only comfort I can find in the coming nationwide garbage barbecue.

I have full faith in women and minorities pulling our ass out of the fire with this one.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:42 PM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


I don't think Trump could run to the left of Clinton, but I think he could definitely run a more populist campaign, which I think liberals and lefties are underestimating the threat of.

Yeah. Trump is running Ross Perot's campaign. The counter to that campaign is to round up everyone who would resist a populist campaign -- women, people of color, sexual minorities -- and use them as your base to then reach across to the independents who are squicked out by the rhetoric. You run a movement campaign, in essence.
posted by dw at 12:42 PM on April 29, 2016


And he'll fail, because, amazingly, people who support the cranky old New Dealer who calls himself a socialist do not like the clownish would-be oligarch who wants herrenvolk democracy. Not that that will stop the hacks from writing 1,000 essays positing that Sanders supporters are crypto-Trump supporters.

I suspect he'll get at least a few Sanders voters who loathe Hillary.

A few comments on the Salon piece are from people who feel that way. A couple even think that after four years of Trump, the Republican party will collapse, so keeping her out of office would be a win-win. .
posted by zarq at 12:45 PM on April 29, 2016


I think I speak for a lot of supporters of Sen. Sanders when I say that much of our support for him has rested on precisely his ability to articulate and energize that populist rage in healthy directions.

I'm less anxious about the fact that Sec. Clinton will be going up against Trump than I was a few months ago -- it looks like his inability to stop saying stupid and offensive things are somewhat ironically keeping him from being in a position to win and actually do the stupid and offensive things he threatens.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:47 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Regarding the "America First" rhetoric: Considering how freely Trump and his supporters have been using that phrase, I'm surprised that he hasn't yet stumbled on "America for Americans." Is it still too soon to compare Trump to a certain bygone Führer?
posted by stolyarova at 12:47 PM on April 29, 2016


I have full faith in women and minorities pulling our ass out of the fire with this one.

They're not doing it for us.
posted by phearlez at 12:48 PM on April 29, 2016 [17 favorites]


Is it still too soon to compare Trump to a certain bygone Führer?

I've been thinking of him as Mussolini and Hitler rolled into one horrible unattractive orange headed ball with sneery lips for months now. Join my mind set!
posted by bearwife at 12:49 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


After four years of Trump we will have Lisa Simpson as President, as Bart's dream foretold. She'll be old enough from the original timeline.
posted by zutalors! at 12:51 PM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


I suspect he'll get at least a few Sanders voters who loathe Hillary.

A few comments on the Salon piece are from people who feel that way. A couple even think that after four years of Trump, the Republican party will collapse, so keeping her out of office would be a win-win. .


With respect, I think those few voters will receive coverage out of all proportion to their actual number, and I'm more willing to believe impressions I get from professional surveys than from my own investigations of the comment sections on liberal news sites like Salon.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:52 PM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


I think someone with Trump's "positions" (to the extent those positions exist in a fixed location at any given time) could outflank Clinton to the left on some issues including how we conceptualize our trade deals, drug decriminalization, and campaign finance. Earlier in the campaign, I was pretty worried about that - especially because Clinton has historically not been the best campaigner. But, I think Trump has shown he's not really capable of threading the needle in terms of effective attacks on Clinton. Every time he's tried, she (or a PAC supporting her) responds with essentially (or literally) laughing in his face. I really hope she continues to laugh at every policy proposal from the GOP as facially absurd instead of treating their ideas as serious plans that should be debated on the merits. I don't think Trump is capable of formulating his ideas in a way that does not alienate the majority of the country, and I don't think the GOP establishment (even if they fully backed him) would be able to control him enough to overcome that.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:52 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


That name has an infamous history, including the pre-WW II isolationist movement prominently represented by Charles Lindbergh

Hey, if there's one thing I know about Charles Lindbergh, it's that he was an American goddamn hero!

It's once you know more than one thing about him that things start to get a little tricky.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:53 PM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump would have a hard time running to the left of Clinton in the New York Marathon. He's not going to run to her left as the Presidential nominee from the Republican Party.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:54 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hey, if you want to vote for somebody based on their capacity to run marathons, look no further than Gary Johnson. He's a triathlete, an ultrarunner, has completed several Ironmans, and has summited the tallest mountain on every continent.

I mean, if we're voting based on athletic accomplishments, he's the obvious winner. ;)
posted by stolyarova at 12:58 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


My mother in law (Pakistani, thinks the US government is the devil incarnate) is half sure that Trump will be the next president of the US. I think it is a desire to enjoy schadenfreude in advance. I'm taking heart from the fact that she also didn't think the US would ever elect a black President.
posted by bardophile at 1:03 PM on April 29, 2016


And now for some slight comic relief, a bit of snark as The New Yorker reviews our election season to date.
posted by bearwife at 1:03 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump can move from the far right positions he holds to the center, and that would outflank Clinton's center-left positions? Your feet must be awfully sore

They are, actually, but that's beside the point.

Clinton is center-right at best. Trump has been running right(ish. Trying to connect dots is tricky here.) in the primary. He'll pivot for the general, if he has any advisors worth a damn. (Again, tricky.)

I suspect he'll get at least a few Sanders voters who loathe Hillary.

And many more who are just pissed at the establishment in general. This is why Sanders polled better than Clinton against any Republican in the field. It's an anti-establishment year, and the Dems are about to nominate the consummate insider.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:04 PM on April 29, 2016


Is it still too soon to compare Trump to a certain bygone Führer?

I generally find Nazi analogies to be ludicrously hyperbolic, but while watching the livestream of last night's Trump rally I got, for perhaps the first time, a whiff of how Trump is becoming / has become the real deal.

The business with the "Angel Moms," whose children had been killed by "illegal immigrants" was legitimately chilling, and became even more so when Trump (and his opening act whoever that clown was) vowed to exact retribution upon those "illegals."

It was, as I mentioned above, straight out of late-30's Germany. Even down to the name, which seems like it absolutely must be a calque of something like Engelmutter.
posted by dersins at 1:06 PM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Clinton is center-right at best.

People keep saying this, but... by what standard? And which specific issues is she center-right on? Because it's sure not "all of them."
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:10 PM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


He'd have to change his positions on immigration, guns, poverty, net neutrality, tax regulation, the economy, civil rights including women's rights and gay rights, all sorts of environmental issues including global warming, energy, eminent domain, abortion, healthcare....

There's this problem where people assume Trump is running on the usual Republican platform, and he's really not. He can run to the left of Clinton on economy, guns, poverty, healthcare, etc.

Basically, the scary fucking deal he is offering is he's like a Democrat, but from the 1950s, where he really only cares about white people. And we're seeing Berniebros go for it.
posted by corb at 1:11 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hey, if you want to vote for somebody based on their capacity to run marathons, look no further than Gary Johnson. He's a triathlete, an ultrarunner, has completed several Ironmans, and has summited the tallest mountain on every continent.

I mean, if we're voting based on athletic accomplishments, he's the obvious winner. ;)


I wish he had run for the Republican nomination. The race could have used a more legitimate Libertarian perspective than Rand can offer and with how bonkers the race was he would have had a non-zero shot.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:11 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Uh, Trump says he'll repeal Obamacare, how is that 'running to the left of Clinton'?
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:12 PM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Clinton is center-right at best.

Seriously, check your shoes.

From 538:
Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.

I know we're talking American politics, where "left" and "right" doesn't mean the same thing it does in every other democracy. But if you're putting Clinton as a center-right candidate, you can't then honestly call Trump right-ish, that's just ridiculous.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 1:13 PM on April 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


She is liberal. She has always been liberal.
posted by bearwife at 1:13 PM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think people just really hate Clinton, which explains things like Sanders supporters who are far more closely aligned with her than with Trump toying with the idea of voting Trump, and assuming that her actual beliefs and actions as president would be more right-wing and noxious than her policy platform, public statements, and voting record would give even the slightest indication of. Why do people hate Clinton so much? A mystery for the ages.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:14 PM on April 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


And we're seeing Berniebros go for it.

not to be the "source for this claim? tu quoque much????" guy, but where are we seeing this
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:14 PM on April 29, 2016


Yeah you can't say "Clinton is center-right by a standard where Full Marxism Now is the 'left' part of the axis" and then turn around and call Trump 'right-ish'.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:15 PM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


not to be the "source for this claim? tu quoque much????" guy, but where are we seeing this

all over reddit and anywhere else disillusioned Sanders supporters congregate

I'm sure it's a tiny minority, not reflective of any major voting patterns, and that the vast majority of level-headed Sanders supporters just aren't out typing their frustration into comment boxes online the way these folks are, but it's trivially easy to see people saying this
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:17 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


He can run to the left of Clinton on economy

Uh?
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:18 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


And we're seeing Berniebros go for it.

No we aren't. We're seeing a handful of fired-up young people blowing off steam on Twitter / Reddit about their preferred candidate's impending primary loss.

It's weird to me that young progressives are getting yelled at as if we are the ones fueling this protofascist nightmare.

My generation is proudly diverse. We believe in human rights, in solidarity, in responsible, effective and compassionate government. In the first elections that we could vote in large numbers, we helped put Barack Obama in the White House. Which liberal icon did the Boomers elect in '68?

People should worry less about a handful of berniebros-turned-Trumpists and more about the fact that old white people keep trying to break shit so they can go back to their imagined 1955 paradise.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:19 PM on April 29, 2016 [27 favorites]


Clinton is center-right at best if you consider the full spectrum of American politics. Calling her liberal compared to others who are running for president now is sort of silly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:20 PM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm sure it's a tiny minority, not reflective of any major voting patterns, and that the vast majority of level-headed Sanders supporters just aren't out typing their frustration into comment boxes online the way these folks are, but it's trivially easy to see people saying this

Fair enough. I wouldn't adopt a fearful tone about Berniebros 4 Trump until they make a stronger showing in the actual polls, though.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:21 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah you can't say "Clinton is center-right by a standard where Full Marxism Now is the 'left' part of the axis" and then turn around and call Trump 'right-ish'.

Social Democracy, not "Full Marxism".

And yeah, Trump was kind of lefty (Clinton donor!) until he made a bid for the Republican nomination. We'll see where he ends up.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:21 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wait, so Trump is kind of lefty for being a Clinton donor but Clinton herself is center-right, despite a potently liberal voting record in the past four years?
posted by stolyarova at 1:23 PM on April 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


It's an anti-establishment year

Clinton has received more votes than anyone in the primaries.
posted by zutalors! at 1:24 PM on April 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


Are they different, then?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:24 PM on April 29, 2016


Wait, so Trump is kind of lefty for being a Clinton donor

He's not lefty for being a Clinton donor. Those things are not causation.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:25 PM on April 29, 2016


I just want to say that "ziplines and Skeletor" is the best phrase I've seen in a while, and I pledge to do my best to make this a popular idiom.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:25 PM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


Calling her liberal compared to others who are running for president now is sort of silly.

My primary ballot didn't have FDR on it. Did yours?
posted by tonycpsu at 1:26 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's astounding that the Republicans are nominating someone who has been pro-choice for most of his life, but I don't think you can really say he was a lefty.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:26 PM on April 29, 2016


My primary ballot didn't have FDR on it. Did yours?

No. I'm not sure what your non-sequitur is for though.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:26 PM on April 29, 2016


Clinton is center-right at best if you consider the full spectrum of American politics.

On what specific issues?
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:27 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


On what specific issues?

Mostly foreign policy, but also LGBT awareness, economic issues, etc.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:28 PM on April 29, 2016


"Sanders is more liberal than her" does not equal "she is center-right within the context of American politics," unless she has RADICALLY changed her position in the past day or so on, hmm, taxes, women's rights, healthcare, gay rights, immigration, criminal justice...
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:29 PM on April 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


He can run to the left of Clinton on economy, guns, poverty, healthcare, etc.

He can. He isn't.

Economy:
Lower the corporate tax rate to 15% to unleash American ingenuity here at home and make us more globally competitive.
...
Attack our debt and deficit by vigorously eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal government, ending redundant government programs, and growing the economy to increase tax revenues.
...
Strengthen the U.S. military and deploying it appropriately in the East and South China Seas.
Guns:
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
...
Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves.
Poverty:
[Can't link to anything, because the only citations of "poverty" in any of Trump's positions refer to poverty in Mexico and among immigrants, and the latter is only a bad thing because they're keeping low-paying jobs that Americans could take.]
Healthcare:
Since March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare.
...
Providing healthcare to illegal immigrants costs us some $11 billion annually. If we were to simply enforce the current immigration laws and restrict the unbridled granting of visas to this country, we could relieve healthcare cost pressures on state and local governments.
Etc.:
[Maybe you can count his VA reform positions, but that's not really a right-left issue at this moment in time.]
posted by Etrigan at 1:30 PM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Saying something unforgivable stupid about Nancy Reagan does not negate the fact that her campaign platform is "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans deserve to live their lives free from discrimination. Hillary will: Ensure full federal equality for all LGBT Americans. Support LGBT kids, parents, and elders. Secure affordable treatment for people living with HIV and AIDS." Yeah, hella center right, she is certainly worse than half of all Republicans on LGBT issues
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:31 PM on April 29, 2016 [27 favorites]


All these people who say she's so right wing have nothing to say about her positions on women's rights.
posted by zutalors! at 1:31 PM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


I posted it earlier, but Clinton was the only candidate who committed to speak at an Asian American political leadership conference. It's part of the answer to "why do minorities like her?" and "what does she even do for downballot races"?
posted by zutalors! at 1:33 PM on April 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


Providing healthcare to illegal immigrants costs us some $11 billion annually. If we were to simply enforce the current immigration laws and restrict the unbridled granting of visas to this country, we could relieve healthcare cost pressures on state and local governments.

Hahaha. Because rounding up and deporting millions of people can happen magically for free. Plus, you know, now that their undocumented parents are deported, hundreds of thousands of American children are now wards of the state.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:37 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


[A few comments removed, please chill a bit pronto.]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:39 PM on April 29, 2016


Question, does it make a substantive difference whether we define Hillary Clinton as a "center-left" or a "center-right" politician? If so, what? And if not, why do we keep arguing about it?
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:40 PM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


they're all just pawns in Martin O'Malley's deviously brilliant game of nine-dimensional chess
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:42 PM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


they're all just pawns in Martin O'Malley's deviously brilliant game of nine-dimensional chess


Chaos is a ladder.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:44 PM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


There's this problem where people assume Trump is running on the usual Republican platform, and he's really not. He can run to the left of Clinton on economy, guns, poverty, healthcare, etc.

Trump could beat the populist drum on some things, like poverty, healthcare, American manufacturing and jobs. It's unlikely that he'd go left of Clinton on guns though.
posted by theorique at 1:52 PM on April 29, 2016


My generation is proudly diverse. We believe in human rights, in solidarity, in responsible, effective and compassionate government.

You have way more faith in our generation than I do, tivaslasvegas. Skulking around the edges of the Trump Rally, I saw a lot of smiling young people with Trump t-shirts and hats, some gleefully yelling back against anti-Trump protesters. And my own younger brother, who is still in college is telling me conversations he has with his classmates about the election. They seem, if not the normal Redditor, sympathetic to the political viewpoints of Reddit. I admit, this could be since he's in a computer related major though.

Anyways, I think young people support in Trump is a significant minority that will grow during the general election. Prime-time cartoons, adult swim, and the internet are all about the non-PC snark put forth as "truthtelling", ironic racism, and trolling. All of which Trump proudly rolls around in.
posted by FJT at 2:01 PM on April 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Question, does it make a substantive difference whether we define Hillary Clinton as a "center-left" or a "center-right" politician?

Yeah, 'cause neither is accurate.

In her time in the Senate, she was to the Left in her own party, including to the Left of both Senators Biden and Obama. She was far to the Left of any Republican. She wasn't Center Left or Right.

If so, what?

If we're going to discuss her politics we owe it to ourselves to be as honest and accurate as possible. Knowing facts can help reduce arguments.
posted by zarq at 2:03 PM on April 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


They seem, if not the normal Redditor, sympathetic to the political viewpoints of Reddit.

So...mostly Sanders supporters? Sounds about right.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:03 PM on April 29, 2016


So...mostly Sanders supporters? Sounds about right.

There is one Sanders supporter among my brother's friends. But, people are fickle, especially on the Internet. Already the Sanders sub has dropped down to double digit daily growth, while the dumpster fire known as "The Donald" subreddit has jumped up to four digit growth. Now that the Sanders campaign is entering it's twilight, folks at the Trump subreddit are seeing an opportunity to pull in some new members.
posted by FJT at 2:09 PM on April 29, 2016


um, this is apparently technically Trump related for some reason or another: Glenn Beck Films Humiliating Video Of Himself Rubbing Face In Cheetos
posted by zachlipton at 2:12 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


bearwife: And now for some slight comic relief, a bit of snark as The New Yorker reviews our election season to date.

This one was well done:
“Mad Bern: Fury Road (But Why Are Our Roads Furious, You Ask? Crumbling Infrastructure, Wall Street Run Amok, and a Lack of Investment in the Middle Class)”

The latest chapter in a franchise featuring a post-apocalyptic class warrior. This project toiled in development hell for years, including a period marooned in the political desert. The eye-popping fund-raising figures are entirely from the grassroots, with no special-interest effects used. The film’s success shocked many in the establishment, especially guzzoline lobbyists, the War Boy industrial complex, and Imperator Hilriosa, who forges a fragile truce with Mad Bern after repeated attempts to kill him. Though its message about the collapse of capitalism can seem implausible, it’s a jaw-dropping assault of sight, sound, and hand gestures. (A surprise hit with a younger demo, many of whom never experienced the original nineteen-sixties version.)

posted by zarq at 2:14 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have no reason why they did it and I don't support it, and I know we shouldn't be calling Trump orange, but I am mesmerized by the question of who thought it would be Quality Time if people put on goggles and rolled their faces in Cheeto dust.
posted by angrycat at 2:44 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


it's Glenn Beck, I mean didn't he record an entire spoken-word album that was just him weeping?
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:47 PM on April 29, 2016


So, anecdotal. But.

Most of my local friends are Bernie supporters. I would say:
80% of them are "I support Bernie but this isn't my entire life and I will vote for Hillary"
10% of them are "BERNIE ISN'T WINNING AND I AM ANGRY but I will eventually calm down just give me time"
The remaining 10% are "SHILLARY CHEATS AND VOTER FRAUD AND READ MORE USUNCUT!!!"

It's those 10% that are all over my FB feed, though, spouting off some new theory. That 10% is pretty noisy, and they drown out the other 90%.

Meanwhile, there are the truly random ones, like the guy who allegedly threatened to cut my congressman's tongue out for supporting Hillary.
posted by dw at 2:49 PM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]




So I've heard two news stories today rumoring that Tim Kaine is Clinton's VP pick waiting in the wings. Now that I look online there's plenty of stories rejecting those rumors, so I assume this is just beltway scuttlebutt as a distraction. But if true, he's my senator, I voted for him for governor and yet I think he's pretty bland. Competent but bland.
posted by peeedro at 3:09 PM on April 29, 2016


The end is near: Clinton and Sanders camps quietly signal resolution
Bob Sutton, chairman of the Broward County GOP Executive Committee in Florida, voiced confidence that Clinton would be easy to defeat in a debate — with a comment not likely to endear him to some female voters. “I think when Donald Trump debates Hillary Clinton she’s going to go down like Monica Lewinsky,” he said.
well that is just i can't even
posted by dersins at 3:12 PM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


A lot of money is going on Tim Kaine to be the pick; he's now second favorite and shortening. At the bookies, Julian Castro is still the clear favorite (currently), though.
posted by Wordshore at 3:13 PM on April 29, 2016


I've been trying to imagine what the general election debates will be like and I literally can't. Like my brain cannot process it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:13 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


OH MY GOD how did I miss that sentence when I read that article. I must have blocked it out of my brain. I mean what. the. f.?
posted by melissasaurus at 3:13 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've heard two news stories today rumoring that Tim Kaine is Clinton's VP pick

Obama had him on a short list too as I recall. I am personally keeping my fingers crossed for Cory Booker, whose name I have not heard mentioned at all as a potential VP.
posted by bearwife at 3:15 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


“I think when Donald Trump debates Hillary Clinton she’s going to go down like Monica Lewinsky,” he said.

I'll take Unveiled Misogyny for 600, Alex.
posted by stolyarova at 3:18 PM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Cory Booker would be a waste as VP, wouldn't he? Why pull a decent Dem Senator out of the Senate?
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:19 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Literally just choked back a scream of total rage, ahahahaha this election is going to be great!!

Actually, you know what, can that be a literal protest when this election inevitably reaches the point at which that kind of comment becomes prevalent among Trump and his supporters? Like, crowds of women just show up and SHRIEK WITH CEASELESS RAGE. I endorse that as an act of political protest.
posted by yasaman at 3:21 PM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I did see an article that was like "it can't be Castro as VP because now that Trump is probably gonna be the Republican candidate she needs a white guy or else all Sanders' straight white male supporters will flock to Trump" which seems like a pretty shallow understanding both of how race and political identity intersect in America and also of how important the VP pick actually is, but w/e
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:21 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ugh, no thank you on Tim Kaine or Cory Booker, especially the latter, whose replacement would be chosen by Chris Christie.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:22 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Like, crowds of women just show up and SHRIEK WITH CEASELESS RAGE.

Harpies 4 Hillz
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:23 PM on April 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


Question, does it make a substantive difference whether we define Hillary Clinton as a "center-left" or a "center-right" politician?

Yeah, it's part of the "Clinton is a DINO" narrative that's been used to attack her liberal credentials. It's a not-so-subtle way of saying she and Trump are the same, so why not vote for the guy.

Basically, it's ignoring her actual performance and platform in favour of a soundbite, the same way people do when saying "Oh, Trump is actually a leftist."
posted by happyroach at 3:26 PM on April 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


To give him a firm grounding in foreign affairs and tee him up to be the next President after HRC. And whoever Christie appointed could be taken down in the next election.
posted by bearwife at 3:26 PM on April 29, 2016


Now that Inslee has a 20 point lead on his GOP challenger (despite having one of the worst first terms I can remember for a Washington governor), I think Patty Murray may be back on the table. Maria Cantwell for sure, but like Kaine, she's not the one with the personality.
posted by dw at 3:27 PM on April 29, 2016


And whoever Christie appointed could be taken down in the next election.

Nooooo we're four seats away from taking back the Senate this year! That would be suicidal!
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:27 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Did we talk about Barbara Boxer's glorious Twitter burns against Carly Fiorina yet?
posted by TwoStride at 3:28 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cory Booker would be a waste as VP, wouldn't he? Why pull a decent Dem Senator out of the Senate?

The Clintons value loyalty very highly. Booker is a very loyal Clinton style Democrat.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:28 PM on April 29, 2016


If Elizabeth Warren is off the table because Republican Governor and "needed in the Senate," why is Cory Booker available?
posted by dw at 3:31 PM on April 29, 2016


"The Clintons" are not the presumptive Democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton is. Can we maybe not do the thing?
posted by dersins at 3:31 PM on April 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


Harpies 4 Hillz

Will there be gold masks and lurking in shadows, too?
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:33 PM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


If Elizabeth Warren is off the table because Republican Governor and "needed in the Senate," why is Cory Booker available?

I think the reason Warren is off the table is she doesn't want the job.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:36 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]




In fairness, I suspect it's more accurate to say "someone on Hillary Clinton's digital team just invented the Snapchat attack ad." But still.
posted by dersins at 3:57 PM on April 29, 2016




Hillary Clinton just invented the Snapchat attack ad

I got an autoplay advertisement for Goldman Sachs on that page. Someone may have invented the ad buy counterattack.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:02 PM on April 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


I may be too old to get why that ad is good.
posted by corb at 4:14 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


It uses tech/novelty that the youngs are into—Snapchat and face swapping—in order to show what Trump's words look like coming out of the mouths of 'presidential' past-Presidents, in order to highlight the absurdity of this statement: "At the right time I'll be so presidential, you will be bored."

I think it's clever and uses the medium/platform well.
posted by defenestration at 4:20 PM on April 29, 2016


So I braved talking politics with the extended family and was heartened to find out that they find Trump terrifying and won't vote for him. They hate Hillary and think Bernie is a lunatic, but they say they're not going to vote for president if Trump is the nominee. And these are pretty hardcore Republicans who I thought might be sort of Trump-y. (They don't care that much about social issues and admire business people.) So that's my report from the front.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:25 PM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


The Clintons value loyalty very highly. Booker is a very loyal Clinton style Democrat.

That's part of the Tim Kaine allure, as I have been learning. He endorsed Obama in 2008, but perhaps to make up for it was one of the first to endorse Clinton this time around. He's a senator from a traditionally-red-turning-blue swing state where the current governor is a Clinton fundraiser. So we can assume whoever fills in that senate seat is also on the Clinton train.

Here's the case for Kaine for VP from 2014: he's a popular governor of a swing state, now in the senate, has foreign policy chops. He has proven his ability to reach rural working class white voter, and can win the Bubba-NASCAR votes (a steal from Trump's home turf and familiar territory for Bill Clinton). More importantly for the Democratic party in the long term, he speaks Spanish from missionary experience in Honduras, so he has potential for outreach to Hispanic/Latino voters.

And now, in the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain is jokingly calling him "Vice President Kaine" (45 second into the audio). He's been calling for more congressional oversight into Presidential war power for a while now. From my POV he is much less of a foreign policy hawk than Clinton.

Anyhow, I don't have a dog in the fight, for me Kaine was pretty *meh, good enough* as Lt. Gov, Governor, and Senator of Va. But I guess that's the world we live in, given a choice between a theocratic shitshow and *meh, good enough*, it's easy to pick sides.

So the hypothetical Clinton-Kaine ticket is good enough for me.
posted by peeedro at 5:36 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


prize bull octorok: "I'm sure it's a tiny minority, not reflective of any major voting patterns, and that the vast majority of level-headed Sanders supporters just aren't out typing their frustration into comment boxes online the way these folks are, but it's trivially easy to see people saying this"

I consider myself a level-headed Sanders supporter. I haven't vented much frustration into comment boxes because I'm not that frustrated. Hillary Clinton will be an OK to good president. I give Bernie money and support him because I think he can be a good to great president. I'm going to vote for him in the Indiana primary, but it doesn't look like he's going to win the nomination. That's unfortunate, but that's how the cookie crumbles. Hillary Clinton is the next best choice. Once she wins the nomination, as is likely, I will begin contributing to her campaign against whoever the republicans choose. If it's Cruz, I may very well phone bank for her. No sour grapes here.

I hate all this crap about "Bernie bros" and the insinuations that my support of him over her makes me some kind of misogynist. His platform and ideals line up more closely with my own. I think he is less beholden to the established power base and rich fat cats. I think he is less hawkish. I also find him to be more likable than her, but how much I like the president doesn't really matter. The president isn't my friend. I'm never going to have a beer with him or her. I think we should have started having women presidents a long time ago such that, now in 2016, the fact she is a woman would be a complete non-issue. I don't know any Bernie supporters who say they will vote for Trump. One of them says he will vote for Jill Stein.

Donald Trump would be terrible but whatever else happens, it is imperative that Ted Cruz does not become the president. I see this a a choice between being hit in the teeth with a baseball bat or being shot in the head with a shotgun.

tl;dr: I support Bernie now. When the time comes, I will support Hillary. She will be an OK president. Life will go on. Fuck Donald Trump. Ted Cruz is dangerous and evil.
posted by double block and bleed at 6:39 PM on April 29, 2016 [38 favorites]


David Brooks: still having a hard time
posted by melissasaurus at 6:47 PM on April 29, 2016


Seconding everything double block and bleed just said.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:47 PM on April 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Bernie Sanders' campaign on Friday withdrew its lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee after claiming the party had unfairly blocked its access to a critical voter database in December.

..."With the investigation behind us, the campaign has withdrawn its lawsuit against the DNC today but continues to implore the DNC to address the systemic instability that remains in its voter file system," Sanders' campaign said in a statement.

..."An independent investigation of the firewall failures in the DNC's shared voter file database has definitively confirmed that the original claims by the DNC and the Clinton campaign were wholly inaccurate -- the Sanders campaign never 'stole' any voter file data," the campaign said in its statement Friday.
"The Sanders campaign never 'exported' any unauthorized voter file data; and the Sanders campaign certainly never had access to the Clinton campaign's 'strategic road map,'" the campaign added.

posted by futz at 6:49 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bernie Sanders' campaign on Friday withdrew its lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee after claiming the party had unfairly blocked its access to a critical voter database in December.

Meanwhile...
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:09 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


CHT. Yup and I think that has been brought up a few times here already, like many other topics that we keep beating further and further into the ground without any hope of changing anyones mind at this point. Am I missing a deeper point that you are trying to make? I hope that this doesn't sound dismissive...I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.
posted by futz at 7:27 PM on April 29, 2016


Here's a full statement about the investigation that was posted to Twitter. They didn't just breach the data, they saved searches and even exported a search using New Hampshire data.

What is really nasty about all this is they didn't just breach her data and steal from it, they then lied about it and tried to sue the DNC for rightly punishing them. That's messed up.
posted by schroedinger at 7:39 PM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Clinton is center-right at best. Trump has been running right(ish. Trying to connect dots is tricky here.)

The thing about the sort of politician Trump is (I'm starting to feel shrill calling him a fascist, but I increasingly think he is) is that they can be difficult to pin down on a political spectrum. They're the original third way.

Running a more populist campaign doesn't necessarily mean "leftist". It doesn't make Clinton more conservative than him. There's a populism that exploits the economic humiliation of the (white) middle and working classes without all that pesky class solidarity and such.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Trump outmaneuver Clinton on trade and manufacturing. It doesn't matter that she was just first lady, he'll hang NAFTA around her neck and the media will help him*.

*I see no reason to believe the media won't continue to function as free campaign advertising so long as Trump provides the headlines.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:41 PM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


schroedinger, where is the actual DNC statement being hosted? I don't doubt that the twitter you linked to is accurate but I can't read it because it is blurry and all her links that I clicked on led back to her own Twitter. Nothing on the DNC website either.
posted by futz at 8:06 PM on April 29, 2016


futz, I am trying to figure that out myself. It looks like they sent it out as an emailed press release after the Sanders campaign claimed the investigation proved they didn't do anything wrong. This Politico article contains the relevant quotes.
posted by schroedinger at 8:28 PM on April 29, 2016


They

Who they exactly? As I understand it, the staffer who did this was hired at the recommendation of the DNC and there has been no suggestion they acted on orders from a higher up.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:56 PM on April 29, 2016


We don't actually need a "full statement" to know what the DNC thinks, do we? One of the basic problems was that the chairwoman of the DNC went on national television and started making analogies about burglary within hours of the incident. If they did go on to actually show interest in the details of what happened months afterward that's fairly irrelevant to their role.

Though it would be quite interesting if they answered the charge in the lawsuit that the same thing happened with the NGP VAN system when said DNC chairwoman was instead a co-chair of the 2008 Clinton campaign, and there was no getting cut off from the database whatsoever. Amazing how suddenly they came around and complied with the original terms of the contract with the Sanders campaign once the lawsuit arose, particularly if they were just "rightly punishing" the actions of the guy they'd recommended.

Because there's no question the DNC broke the contract as was the basis of the lawsuit. The Sanders campaign withdrawing the lawsuit despite that rather than ensuring that all of the DNC and Clinton campaign's claims got laid out and adjudicated in court seems pretty magnanimous to me.
posted by XMLicious at 11:05 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


the staffer who did this was hired at the recommendation of the DNC

This is not the grand conspiracy you are looking for. There are no more than a few dozen people in the world who have the skills and experience to be hired on as data director for a major Democratic presidential campaign. They pretty much all know each other, have all worked together on other campaigns (mostly Obama 08 and Obama 2012), and on those campaigns have all worked with people who now work for the DNC. It would have been incredibly irresponsible to hire a data director who could NOT provide a reference from someone at the DNC.
posted by dersins at 11:33 PM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


The point isn't that this incident was the result of a conspiracy, it's that even the conduct they're trying to pin on the Sanders campaign still actually reflects more on the ethical standards of the DNC.
posted by XMLicious at 11:44 PM on April 29, 2016


No, it reflects on the ethical standards of the dude in question.
posted by dersins at 11:48 PM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


(And, frankly, on the judgement of Jeff Weaver for doubling and then tripling down on "we didn't do nothing wrong" when he should have just sucked it up and admitted the data director fucked up. Filing the lawsuit was just silly grandstanding-- the Sanders campaign were always going to get back their access to the VAN.)
posted by dersins at 11:55 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


If any future non-establishment campaign has an incident like this and the DNC reacts by levying unprecedented contract-violating sanctions that just so happen to jeopardize campaign operations, the written notes about the incident somehow end up only in an opposing establishment campaign's hands, and the chair of the DNC (who ran a previous campaign for the same opposing candidate) immediately goes on national television to broadcast condemnation and insinuations, waiting around and trusting that the benevolence, impartiality, and honor of the DNC will lead to them renouncing and overturning their actions of their own accord would be the worst possible plan for dealing with the situation.
posted by XMLicious at 12:16 AM on April 30, 2016


There's a rather large gulf between "waiting around" and "actively and loudly misrepresenting the situation to the media ," especially when that misrepresentation appears to still be happening even now.
posted by dersins at 12:31 AM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Who they exactly?

One staffer? Here's the description from the statement:
The cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has concluded the independent investigation agreed to by the DNC and Bernie 2016. It identified evidence of unauthorized access via four user accounts from the Bernie 2016 campaign. All unauthorized access occurred during a one-hour period from 10:41 to 11:42 EST on December 16, 2015.

During that time, the four users conducted 25 searches using proprietary Hillary for America score data across 11 states. All of the results of these searches were saved within the VoteBuilder system, with the exception of one instance where a user exported a statistical summary of a search using HFA scoring in New Hampshire.
That sounds like more than one user to me.

As I understand it, the staffer who did this was hired at the recommendation of the DNC and there has been no suggestion they acted on orders from a higher up.

Seriously? Seriously? Question: if Clinton did this to the Bernie campaign, would you be giving her the benefit of the doubt? Would you insist there's no indication there were orders from higher ups that caused her staffers to break into Bernie campaign data? Or are you seriously trying to imply these staffers were sleeper agents?!

The Sanders campaign withdrawing the lawsuit despite that rather than ensuring that all of the DNC and Clinton campaign's claims got laid out and adjudicated in court seems pretty magnanimous to me.

And I'm sure the conclusions of the investigation that they did do something wrong had nothing to do with that. It was all out of the kindness of Bernie's heart. Come on.

For all of the allegations of Clinton being a shifty, underhanded liar, it's Bernie's campaign that's somehow accidentally ended up in other people's databases, and it's Bernie's campaign that's got a legion of excuses for the multiple FEC letters documenting illegal donations and missing millions of campaign funds, and it's Bernie who keeps promising tax returns and then coming up with excuses to not release them. If anyone's being magnanimous, it's the Clinton campaign. They know about all this shit (as well as Bernie's myriad skeletons), and they are not going after him for it because they are keeping their eyes on the general.
posted by schroedinger at 1:03 AM on April 30, 2016 [19 favorites]


[Folks, maybe we can include the current news re dropping the lawsuit without an extended relitigation of the original incident that was discussed here thoroughly over hundreds of comments at the time. For folks who want or need a refresher, you can find much of that conversation in this thread.]
posted by taz (staff) at 3:16 AM on April 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


A couple even think that after four years of Trump, the Republican party will collapse, so keeping her out of office would be a win-win.

That's an astoundingly stupid assumption. As I pointed out upthread, after four years of Trump, the Republicans -- who will certainly retain control of Congress with a Trump victory -- will have signed into law all kinds of legislation from the movement conservative wish-list -- tax cuts, cutting of regulation (in particular the EPA's jurisdiction over greenhouse gases), abortion, so-called "religious freedom" discrimination protection, repealing Obamacare, you name it.

In addition, Trump will get to pick at least tone SCOTUS judge and possibly a second. At the very least, the Republicans' obstructionism will have prevented the court from getting any morel liberal and quite likely more conservative. Hello, voting restrictions; goodbye, affirmative action.

And a Trump victory will have validated the entire "say the quiet parts loud" strategy, so even so-called "serious" politicians will sound more and more like Rush Limbaugh in order to forestall a primary challenge from the ultra-conservatives, which will result in even more conservative legislation being passed -- which, again, there's no reason to believe Trump won't sign.

A Trump victory will give the Republican Party a shot in the arm, and re-validate its bad behaviors going back at least to the turn of the century, if not the 1980s, if not the 1960s.

Fortunately, I don't see it in the cards, least of all with the so-called "Bernie bros" -- which does not mean voters who prefer him over Clinton but would vote for her in the general -- being the crucial swing vote.
posted by Gelatin at 6:42 AM on April 30, 2016 [15 favorites]




roomthreeseventeen: "Re: use of term "off the reservation" by @HillaryClinton in our interview yesterday"

That's not a phrase I used frequently, but I'm horrified that I ever said it. I never considered what it actually meant until this moment. It is now permanently removed from my lexicon. Thanks for helping me look less like a jackass in the future.

Now I'm feeling paranoid about whether other sayings I use harbor hidden horrible meanings.
posted by double block and bleed at 8:43 AM on April 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've never even heard that expression before today.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:46 AM on April 30, 2016


I've heard it a lot, in the context of organizational management (biz and politics stuff basically), and it's, yeah. One of those things that I think most people saying it don't think about, any more than they think about a pop fly out when they say they want to be sure to "touch base". Except with a gross racist underpinning that repeated bland use has gotten detached from but which doesn't actually go away. So as soon as you stop to think about it and figure out the context it's like, oh. Yeah. Shit. Maybe not so much with that.
posted by cortex at 8:52 AM on April 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


Seinfeld - Native American
(Season 5, Episode 10)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpGfyp6MxkM&feature=youtu.be&t=239
posted by lampshade at 9:25 AM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


morel liberal

Richer than a latte liberal, but not quite a truffle liberal. My aim in life is to settle at caviar.
posted by dis_integration at 9:38 AM on April 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


But what of the chanterelle centrists?
posted by dersins at 9:41 AM on April 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


They're fun guys
posted by Rumple at 11:11 AM on April 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


...PATION
posted by cortex at 11:12 AM on April 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Which liberal icon did the Boomers elect in '68?

That's a bit unfair, and too soon? RIP RFK.
posted by Sreiny at 1:22 PM on April 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't think we need to know what actions Trump would take to estimate the danger he poses to our country. Imagine if all the sudden a puppy was put in charge of the country, and made decisions by pressing one of 10 different buttons. There would be no way to estimate what the next day would bring.

The uncertainty and chaos Trump represents, and the inability of people, businesses, and other countries to reliably predict his positions and actions could strongly harm the economy and our national security. Members of our own military have already expressed indecision about whether they would follow his orders. The stock market would immediately tank. There would be an unparalleled lack of talent and experience in the government (you think Trump is going to know whom to place in all the political appointment positions in the bureaucracy, or that people with any spine are going to agree to work for the Trump Administration?). Countries like Russia and China that have lately been getting more aggressive would likely rachet that up.
posted by sallybrown at 1:24 PM on April 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


And yet, you wonder if Hillary referring to "off the reservation" men was a backhanded reference to Bill.

I don't use "off the reservation" myself since it's just never been in my lexicon. (Growing up in a state that's 1/3 Native American does that to you.) There is a Native food truck here in town called Off The Rez. Their fry bread is good.
posted by dw at 1:26 PM on April 30, 2016


I don't see Trump's election bringing the downfall of the GOP. A Republican president means they'll control the executive and legislative branches for the first time since the Dubya administration. Even with a loose cannon in the executive seat, they will still have the ability to move without Democratic roadblocks.

I don't think the market will tank immediately. It'll take time for the market to digest what a Trump presidency looks like. I do think that first year would be painful for everyone, though.

If things really get bad, THEN I think we might see the downfall of the GOP, but not in the way you think. As Trump vetoes everything left and right and the leadership has no idea what's going to get signed, you may see a "unity government" form in Congress among Blue Dogs, Republicans not sympathetic to the Tea Party, and perhaps more liberal Democrats. The point would be to create bills with veto-proof majorities. That could lead to the moderates working more closely together and exiling the far ends from the process. At that point, this may become the new GOP, leaving the Democrats as the leftist and progressive party and the "old" GOP as a rump of far-right true believers.

Regardless, I'd rather Hillary, who will behave predictably if perhaps not a Perfect Progressive, than Trump, who will change his mind with every tweet.
posted by dw at 1:39 PM on April 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump, who will change his mind with every tweet.

Back in Australia we call this "policy on the run" and it's considered a bad thing.
posted by Talez at 2:35 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, just voted. I love that Oregon makes voting so fucking easy. The ballot comes in the mail 2-3 weeks before the election (ballots are mailed out 20 days before election day). You can fill it out at your leisure, consulting the handy voter's guide that also comes in the mail (or whatever other resources you choose to consult) and either drop it in the mail or take it to at any one of a ton of official drop locations (there are about 30 in Multnomah County alone). Seriously, it's the best.
posted by dersins at 3:09 PM on April 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't think we need to know what actions Trump would take to estimate the danger he poses to our country. Imagine if all the sudden a puppy was put in charge of the country, and made decisions by pressing one of 10 different buttons. There would be no way to estimate what the next day would bring.

We have precedence for that.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:49 PM on April 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Anybody watching the WH Correspondence dinner? Larry Wilmore is... not going over all that well. I'm cringing a bit.
posted by Justinian at 7:43 PM on April 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Go home, Maureen, you're drunk.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:51 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think he is brilliant but this is not his audience.. The truth stings.
posted by futz at 7:52 PM on April 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Anybody watching the WH Correspondence dinner? Larry Wilmore is... not going over all that well. I'm cringing a bit.

I think he's pretty funny, but the press do not like being the butt of his jokes. What a bunch of babies.
posted by homunculus at 7:53 PM on April 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Morning Joe has its head so far up Trump's ass they bumped into Chris Christie."
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:54 PM on April 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Right, I was commenting on the reaction more than the jokes. Note that now that he has moved on to the candidates the crowd is with him.

I agree with homunculus; bunch of babies.
posted by Justinian at 7:56 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I thought Wilmore was genius. I don't blame the audience for their response; he raked them over the coals (deservedly).
posted by sallybrown at 8:07 PM on April 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Some uptight self important white folks in that audience.

And I wonder how the yapping media robot heads will handle the recap? My guess is not well. The YMH's don't like to be seen sweating or have their hair mussed up. Oh! And questioning the media's integrity? He was on point but made no friends in that room. I don't use Twitter. Does anyone know what the reaction is there?

Obama was awesome as usual. Loved it.
posted by futz at 8:07 PM on April 30, 2016


Also glad to see the Zodiac Killer meme catapulted into the mainstream.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:09 PM on April 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Maybe the best line of the night was Obama thanking Biden for not shooting anyone in the face.

Obama had a lot of good material.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:15 PM on April 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


It's worth noting that Stephen Colbert's legendary Correspondents' Dinner speech did not go over that well within the hall either.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:21 PM on April 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Obama basically blamed the media for the rise of trump and more and got laughs. If you can't handle the heat, don't go. Which reminds me to inquire where trumpy was tonight...was he off raising money for a corruption laden veterans charity again? I know that he didn't have to be there but he never passes up the opportunity to be in the limelight unless the attention might tear open his thin skin or expose his ignorance. So I guess I just answered my own question.
posted by futz at 8:24 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Sorry I was a little late, I was running on CPT . . . which stands for 'jokes that white people should not make.'"

Hee!

I know that he didn't have to be there but he never passes up the opportunity to be in the limelight unless the attention might tear open his thin skin or expose his ignorance.

Obama and Seth Meyers totaled him in 2011. It was glorious. He probably didn't want a repeat.

I haven't been watching this by the way, has someone made a joke about his short fingers yet?
posted by schroedinger at 8:27 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]




2 or 3 hand jokes that I recall.
posted by futz at 8:29 PM on April 30, 2016


Obama was amazing. I'm really, really going to miss him. And Larry Wilmore definitely had some jokes that were actually unfunny, but he did pretty well, even if it wasn't at Stephen Colbert levels of "oh my god, is he really...?!"

I really appreciate how both Obama and Wilmore went after the press for their Trump enabling. And ha, CNN had a rough night.
posted by yasaman at 8:36 PM on April 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I remember Obama's first couple WCDs, where he'd giggle before delivering his punch lines. He's gotten a lot smoother but I sort-of miss the pre-emptive giggling.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:39 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obama (from the CSPAN transcript, with minor corrections):

EIGHT YEARS AGO, I SAID IT WAS TIME TO CHANGE THE TONE OF OUR POLITICS. IN HINDSIGHT, I CLEARLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC.

CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN SAYING THERE ARE THINGS I CANNOT DO IN MY FINAL YEAR. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS DINNER WAS NOT ONE OF THEM.

I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE SOME OF THE AWARD-WINNING REPORTERS WHO WE HAVE WITH US HERE TONIGHT. RACHEL MCADAMS, MARK RUFFALO, LIV SCHREIBER -- THANK YOU ALL FOR EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE. I AM JUST JOKING. AS YOU KNOW, "SPOTLIGHT" IS A MOVIE ABOUT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS WITH THE RESOURCES AND THE AUTONOMY TO CHASE DOWN THE TRUTH AND ALL THE POWERFUL ACCOUNTABLE. THE BEST FANTASY FILM SINCE "STAR WARS."

ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT AN ENTIRELY UNFAIR COMPARISON BETWEEN MIKE BLOOMBERG AND THE DONALD, MIKE WAS A BIG CITY MAYOR. HE KNOWS POLICY IN DEPTH, AND HE IS ACTUALLY WORTH THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HE SAYS HE IS.

WE HAVE THE BRIGHT NEW FACE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HERE TONIGHT, MR. BERNIE SANDERS. THERE HE IS. BERNIE, YOU LOOK LIKE A MILLION BUCKS. OR, TO PUT IN TERMS YOU WILL UNDERSTAND, YOU LOOK LIKE 37,000 DONATIONS OF $27 EACH.

And yes, he did end by dropping a mic.
BERNIE'S SLOGAN HAS HELPED HIS CAMPAIGN CATCH FIRE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE -- "FEEL THE BERN". THAT IS A GOOD SLOGAN. HILLARY SLOGAN HAS NOT HAD THE SAME EFFECT. LET'S SEE THIS. "TRUDGE UP THE HILL"

THEN THERE IS TED CRUZ. HE HAS HAD A TOUGH WEEK. HE WENT TO INDIANA -- HOOSIER COUNTRY, STOOD ON A BASKETBALL COURT, AND CALLED THE HOOP A BASKETBALL RING. WHAT ELSE IS IN HIS LEXICON? BASEBALL STICKS? FOOTBALL HAT? BUT SURE, I AM THE FOREIGN ONE.

YOU KNOW I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT TRUMP! C'MON! WE WEREN'T JUST GOING TO STOP THERE, COME ON. ALTHOUGH I AM A LITTLE HURT HE IS NOT HERE TONIGHT -- WE HAD SO MUCH FUN THE LAST TIME. AND IT IS SURPRISING, YOU HAVE A ROOM FULL OF SUPPORTERS, CELEBRITIES, CAMERAS, AND HE SAYS NO. IS THIS DINNER TOO TACKY FOR THE DONALD? WHAT COULD HE POSSIBLY BE DOING INSTEAD? IS HE AT HOME EATING A TRUMP STEAK? TWEETING INSULTS TO ANGELA MERKEL? WHAT IS HE DOING? THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT IS INCREDULOUS THAT HE IS THEIR MOST LIKELY NOMINEE -- INCREDULOUS, SHOCKING. THEY SAY DONALD LACKS FOREIGN-POLICY EXPERIENCE TO BE PRESIDENT. IN FAIRNESS, HE HAS SPENT YEARS MEETING WITH LEADERS FROM AROUND THE WORLD, MISS SWEDEN, MISS ARGENTINA, MISS AZERBAIJAN. AND THERE IS ONE AREA WHERE HE COULD BE INVALUABLE, CLOSING GUANTANAMO. BECAUSE TRUMP KNOWS A THING OR DO ABOUT RUNNING WATERFRONT PROPERTIES INTO THE GROUND.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:04 PM on April 30, 2016 [18 favorites]


Thank you for the link to the recording. Larry Wilmore, holy shit, he is ruining this room.
posted by schroedinger at 9:32 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wilmore high-and-lowlights:

(to Obama) I SAW YOU HANGING OUT WITH NBA PLAYERS LIKE SETH CURRY, GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS. THAT WAS COOL. KIND OF MAKES SENSE BECAUSE BOTH OF YOU LIKE RAINING DOWN BOMBS ON PEOPLE FROM LONG DISTANCES. [BOOS]

BUT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE FIRST LADY, SHE IS THE EPITOME OF GRACE, CLASS, AND POISE. ISN'T SHE? SHE REALLY IS. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH FUTURE FIRST GENTLEMAN BILL CLINTON, WHOSE THREE FAVORITE STRIPPERS ARE NAMED GRACE, CLASS, AND POISE.

I AM IMPRESSED WITH THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM. THERE ARE SO MANY RICH, POWERFUL PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM. IT IS NICE TO FINALLY MATCH THE NAMES TO THE FACES IN THE PANAMA PAPERS.

I HAVE NOT WATCHED CNN FOR A LONG TIME. I USED TO WATCH IT BACK WHEN IT WAS A NEWS NETWORK. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS, BUT I CANNOT GET ENOUGH OF THAT CNN COUNTDOWN CLOCK. NOW WE CAN SEE EXACTLY WHEN THEY HIT ZERO IN THE RATINGS. [BOOS]

NOT TO THROW SHADE, BUT FOX NEWS NETWORK IS THE HIGHEST RATED NETWORK AMONG VIEWERS WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT "SHADE" MEANS. THEY TRIED TO CONVINCE AMERICA THAT BEYONCE WAS ANTI-COPS. COME ON. AT MOST SHE IS ANTI-PANTS.

MSNBC NOW STANDS FOR "MISSING A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF BLACK CORRESPONDENTS."

SOME OF AMERICA'S FINEST BLACK JOURNALISTS ARE HERE TONIGHT. DON LEMON IS HERE, TOO. ALLEGED JOURNALIST DON LEMON, EVERYBODY.

I AM SURPRISED AL SHARPTON IS A HILLARY SUPPORTER. YOU DO NOT PUT A RELAXER IN YOUR HAIR FOR 40 YEARS AND NOT FEEL THE "BERN".

THE TREASURY PROMISED TO PUT HARRIET TUBMAN'S FACE ON THE $10 BILL BUT NOW WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL 2030 ON THE $20 BILL. YEAH. WOMEN HAVE NOT BEEN THIS DECEIVED BY A BILL SINCE COSBY. [BOOS] BEN CARSON PRAISED ANDREW JACKSON SAYING HE WAS A TREMENDOUS PRESIDENT. FROM THE GRAVE, JACKSON SAID, WHAT DID THAT JIGABOO SAY?...

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS IS HERE TONIGHT. SENATOR. I AM SURPRISED, YOU NEVER COME TO THESE THINGS. HE USUALLY GOES TO THE WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS' EARLY BIRD DINNER. HE RECENTLY HAD A HERNIA OPERATION. THEY SAY IT IS HIS OWN FAULT FOR TRYING TO LIFT THE HOPE OF THE DISENFRANCHISED. YOU HAVE TO STRETCH BEFORE YOU DO THAT, SENATOR.

DONALD TRUMP SAID IF HILLARY CLINTON WERE IN MAN, HE DID NOT THINK SHE WOULD GET 5% OF THE VOTE. OK. ALL RIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, IF HILLARY CLINTON WERE SUDDENLY A MAN, HER BIGGEST PROBLEM WILL BE TRYING TO FIND A BATHROOM SHE CAN USE IN NORTH CAROLINA.

I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY EVERYBODY TREATS DONALD TRUMP WITH KID GLOVES. THEN I REMEMBER THEY ARE THE ONLY GLOVES THAT WILL FIT HIS STUPID LITTLE BABY HANDS.

AM NOT SURPRISED DONALD TRUMP IS HAPPENING TO AMERICA BECAUSE I WATCH MOVIES. I DO. EVERY TIME THERE IS A BLACK PRESIDENT, SOMETHING ALWAYS COMES TO DESTROY THE EARTH. ALWAYS.

THERE IS A JOKE GOING AROUND THE INTERNET THAT TED CRUZ IS ACTUALLY THE ZODIAC KILLER. I AM NOT MAKING THAT UP. THAT IS ABSURD. SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIKED THE ZODIAC KILLER. RECENTLY, TED CRUZ GOT A STRING OF WINS AND ENDORSEMENTS AND THEN EVERYBODY REMEMBERED WHO TED CRUZ IS. THE ZODIAC KILLER. JOHN BOEHNER CAME OUT OF RETIREMENT TO DESCRIBE TED CRUZ AS LUCIFER IN THE FLESH. LUCIFER. THAT IS NOT FAIR, LUCIFER IS HORRIBLE BUT HE IS NOT THE ZODIAC TELLER. HEIDI CRUZ REVEALED THAT AFTER THEY GOT MARRIED, TED BOUGHT SOMETHING LIKE 100 CANS OF SOUP. NOT MAKING YOUR SELF LOOK LESS LIKE THE ZODIAC KILLER, TED CRUZ.

I JUST GOT A NOTE FROM THE PRESIDENT SAYING, IF YOU WANT ANOTHER DRINK YOU BETTER ORDER NOW BECAUSE THE BAR WILL BY CLOSING DOWN. OF COURSE, HE SAID THE SAME THING ABOUT GUANTANAMO SO YOU HAVE ANOTHER EIGHT YEARS.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:52 PM on April 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


A quick tally of the CNN crew's reactions to being called out for being terrible:

Jake Tapper (POTUS: "Jake Tapper left journalism to join CNN") - Drink a big gulp of wine
Wolf Blitzer - Stoically stare blankly at nothing in particular
Don Lemon - Give Larry Wilmore the finger
posted by zachlipton at 10:07 PM on April 30, 2016


You forgot one from Wilmore: "MSNBC got rid of so many black people I thought Boko Haram was running that network."

This was me: D: --> :D --> D: D: D:
posted by schroedinger at 10:13 PM on April 30, 2016 [5 favorites]




Speaking as a comedian, I honestly did not think Wilmore was funny. Sorry, jokes just weren't very funny. But I came in midway through his set.

"Morning Joe has its head so far up Trump's ass they bumped into Chris Christie."

Did he say THAT? Now THAT is funny. What I saw was safe, lame and dull.
posted by msalt at 2:35 AM on May 1, 2016


Aw, I'm gonna miss Obama.
posted by figurant at 4:34 AM on May 1, 2016


FOOTBALL HAT?

That was a record scratch. Hat and helmet are synonyms for players. It's like hockey sweaters/jersies.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:37 AM on May 1, 2016


I like that Milan Kundera quote "The struggle of man against power, is the struggle of memory against forgetting", homunculus.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:47 AM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Larry Wilmore was spectacular. If the people you're roasting are cheering, you're doing it wrong.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:04 AM on May 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


place is full of mefi readers. they're only laughing at the trump jokes.
posted by andrewcooke at 7:32 AM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


(to Obama) I SAW YOU HANGING OUT WITH NBA PLAYERS LIKE SETH CURRY, GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS. THAT WAS COOL. KIND OF MAKES SENSE BECAUSE BOTH OF YOU LIKE RAINING DOWN BOMBS ON PEOPLE FROM LONG DISTANCES. [BOOS]

[...]

I JUST GOT A NOTE FROM THE PRESIDENT SAYING, IF YOU WANT ANOTHER DRINK YOU BETTER ORDER NOW BECAUSE THE BAR WILL BY CLOSING DOWN. OF COURSE, HE SAID THE SAME THING ABOUT GUANTANAMO SO YOU HAVE ANOTHER EIGHT YEARS.

aaaahahahaha
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:39 AM on May 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


I thought that Obama bomb joke was one of the best of the night.
posted by sallybrown at 7:47 AM on May 1, 2016


Larry Wilmore's speech

It's half black standup, half classic roast speech. No wonder the audience squirmed.
posted by dw at 7:47 AM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


No wonder the audience squirmed.

It's interesting to watch audience reaction--the still bodies and faces; the people looking to others to gauge reactions; the eyes that don't smile even if the mouth is. Awkward.
posted by MonkeyToes at 7:51 AM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The fact that "journalists" can be at that event and have even a moment of NOT being uncomfortable is the real offense. Reports are that the WHCA grants are shrinking as a percentage of their intake so they're now gross on several fronts.
posted by phearlez at 8:06 AM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wolf Blitzer - Stoically stare blankly at nothing in particular

The "speaking of drones, Wolf Blitzer's here tonight" was wonderful, and Blitzer's complete lack of reaction made it much better.
posted by dis_integration at 8:07 AM on May 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


obama is hilarious too, now that i've watched it. can you imagine cameron doing something like that? ouch.
posted by andrewcooke at 11:10 AM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Nerdy fight breaks out at WHCD afterparty between Fox News and Huffington Post reporters at the "U.S. Institute of Peace" for crying out loud.
posted by zachlipton at 11:25 AM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


trump: not the president you want, but the one you deserve.
(in the context of both the fight above and the comments in obama's speech about press coverage)
posted by andrewcooke at 11:58 AM on May 1, 2016


No. The only people who deserve Trump are those who vote for him. And even then, they don't. Not only does the majority of the USA not deserve a racist, misogynist, queerphobic, know-nothing magic pixie dust economics person in charge (which, yes, goes for basically every Republican under the sun), the rest of the world does not deserve a xenophobic warmongering twit who's going to launch another invasion every time they have a bout of indigestion (which, yes, every Republican again).

Nobody deserves Trump.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:14 PM on May 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Sam Wang brings his math to the November election:
The November outcome should be within 1 SD of current polls approximately two-thirds of the time. Hillary Clinton’s polling margin over Donald Trump is currently +8% (median of 19 pollsters since mid-March) – twice the standard deviation. Based on past years, how likely is it that Trump can catch up? It is possible to convert Clinton’s lead to a probability using the t-distribution*, which can account for outlier events like 1964 and 1980. Using this approach, the probability that Trump can catch up by November is 9%, and the probability that Clinton will remain ahead of Trump is 91%**. This probability doesn’t take into account Electoral College mechanisms. But since the bias of the Electoral College is quite small, it does not make a difference in the calculation.
posted by octothorpe at 1:22 PM on May 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


From Sam Wang's keyboard to God's ears. (Eyes? Prayer holes?)
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:27 PM on May 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


prayer orifice
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:56 PM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Larry Wilmore was spectacular. If the people you're roasting are cheering, you're doing it wrong.

It's great to attack the people in front of you, and Colbert was brilliant at this. IMHO though Wilmore's jokes just weren't very funny. YMMV

"Next year, it will be 'Donald Trump presents a luxurious banquet paid for by Mexico'."
"Mitch McConnell could block LeBron James."
Joe Biden won't have to answer any more questions like "Don't I know you from somewhere?"
"new movie Suicide Squad, not be to be confused with Jeb Bush's new movie Suicide Watch."

Meh.

And his better jokes like the Panama Papers gag, Andrew Jackson "What did that jigaboo say?" and "Don Lemon's here too" did get laughs.
posted by msalt at 2:14 PM on May 1, 2016


[Bunch of comments deleted. please don't drop examples of the worst possible behavior here. It doesn't do any good and does harm. ]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 3:21 PM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]




Sanders' goal of staying in the contest to positively influence the Democratic platform, like Trump's pivot to the centre, last seen riding a couple of unicorns out of town.
posted by maudlin at 3:28 PM on May 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sanders: 'The convention will be a contested contest'

I just facepalmed so hard I broke my nose
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:31 PM on May 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Disappointing.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:31 PM on May 1, 2016


So he's pushing all the chips onto California and New Jersey and hoping the wins in Oregon and the Upper Midwest give him enough delegates that his winner-take-all gambit grants him the key delegates he needs.

So we've gone completely around from "superdelegates are HORRIBLE TOOLS OF THE POWERS THAT BE" to "superdelegates will let us SUBVERT THE POWERS THAT BE." The man is a politician, I tell ya.
posted by dw at 3:38 PM on May 1, 2016


Interesting thing in the comments on that Sam Wang article: Trump's favorability among Republicans is now +20; Cruz's is -2. That's a massive reversal for both. And it suggests the GOP rank-and-file have accepted Trump is going to be their candidate.

Hillary's is +46 among Democrats; Sanders is +53.
posted by dw at 3:47 PM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders, by his own admission in that same article, states that he has only won 45% of the pledged delegates so far, but apparently he wants the superdelegates to undo the popular will of the voters (Clinton is up more than three million votes in the popular vote) and give it to him anyway? Some populist campaign we've got here.

The Sanders campaign has built an incredible following that could be used for so much good, but that goodwill isn't going to last dragging everyone through an unwinnable slog. I'd much rather see all that energy and passion used to start building a lasting progressive body that can keep up the fight for, say, campaign finance reform and to support other progressive candidates than have it be all squandered now.
posted by zachlipton at 3:53 PM on May 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


CONTESTED CONVENTION FOR EVERYONE.
posted by corb at 3:59 PM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


All politicians talk tough right up until the moment they concede. This fires up the base and he still has primaries that he wants to win.
posted by futz at 3:59 PM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


"A contested contest" offends me on a purely grammatical level.

I still don't think it matters that much, though. Sanders may annoy me, but he's not going to hurt the Democratic campaign in the long run.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:01 PM on May 1, 2016


Ugh, I'm pretty furious about Sanders' comments. Even if we went with Sanders' unique interpretation of delegate math, Hillary would still be leading. Are superdelegates supposed to just change their votes because....reasons??? I guess?

That Collegehumor video about Bernie math is starting to seem more and more apt. I mean, come the fuck on. This is like a kid who's losing a game coming up with ever more byzantine and tortured ways in which, no, actually, if you considered this and this and this impossible thing that's against the rules, I'm winning!!

I don't have a problem with Sanders staying in the race to influence the Democratic platform, but I have a real problem with him basically deciding that following the expressed will of the voters is absolutely necessary when he's winning and entirely optional when he's not. There's a difference between respecting your supporters in states that haven't voted yet, and straight up damaging delusion. He should be pivoting to say "yes, winning the nomination is unlikely at this point, but you have all done a tremendous job making your voices heard, and we must continue to convey to the Democratic party that we want *insert Sanders platform points here*, so vote for me in the remaining primaries and support these other progressive candidates."
posted by yasaman at 4:09 PM on May 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


he has only won 45% of the pledged delegates so far,

And has far fewer of the superdelegates. He's going to have to move them somehow.

actually, if you considered this and this and this impossible thing that's against the rules, I'm winning!!

What impossible thing?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:11 PM on May 1, 2016


As a reminder, though -- Sanders has less than 1% chance of winning at this point. The best he can hope for is to steal a bunch of wins between now and them and make a "momentum" argument. But Hillary can't clinch a pledged delegate majority before CA and NJ vote June 7 unless it turns out Bernie is actually in the pocket of Goldman.

There's nothing wrong with him running the race to the end. He should. It's when he motivates his followers to harass superdelegates that we start getting into unsavory territory. He needs to focus on finishing strong, maybe stealing California and Puerto Rico, and coming in force to Philadelphia. But we're five weeks from June 7, everyone is already burned out on this election, and the risk isn't mutually-assured destruction but mutually assured compassion fatigue and exhaustion.

I really hope Indiana turns out to be the routs the polls are starting to suggest, because seriously, I'd like to order Trump and Clinton to a beach somewhere for the rest of May so the rest of us can get a reprieve from what's been the most bitter election cycle since perhaps the 19th century.
posted by dw at 4:22 PM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


he needs 65 percent of the remaining delegates in the upcoming contests

That impossible thing. Because according to just about any interpretation of current polling, a 15 point blowout is just not going to happen. Like, okay, I concede it's possible that Hillary's campaign bus could be hit by a meteorite or whatever! But come on. Also there's the fact that if super delegates voted with their states, Hillary would still have the lead. Turning super delegates into winner takes all helps Hillary and hurts Bernie.

Though I should clarify that when I said "against the rules," I was referring to my not-great analogy of a kid trying to win a game, not that anything Bernie is suggesting is officially against any rules.
posted by yasaman at 4:24 PM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean, he's laid off a bunch of his campaign staff, and the Hillary people I know have been farmed out to state parties where they're gearing up for the general. His fundraising numbers have fallen off a cliff. Everyone who has any grasp on reality knows it's over. This is all just posturing. It doesn't matter. We can stop sniping at each other now.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:30 PM on May 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


what's been the most bitter election cycle since perhaps the 19th century.

Have you only been alive for like three years
posted by Greg Nog at 4:34 PM on May 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


From this tweet, making ALL superdelegates support a state "winner" (instead of dividing them up proportionately as has been the case with pledged delegates), Clinton loses some and Sanders gains more than some, but he still trails her by a lot based on all contests so far.

Clinton pledged delegates: 1645*; Sanders pledged delegates: 1318* (These numbers are slightly in flux due to current challenges, but I think the maximum swing is about 40 delegates if all challenges go Sanders' way).

Clinton supers count: 520 current / 373 if all swing as Sanders asks
Sanders supers count: 39 current / 147 if all swing as Sanders asks

Current Clinton pledged + super = 2165, dropping to 2018 if adjusted as per Sanders
Current Sanders pledged + super = 1357, increasing to 1465 if adjusted as per Sanders

It is extremely unlikely that Sanders will win the remaining contests by the HUGE margin needed to squeak into a very close win by total number of delegates. If this set of HUGE UNLIKELY VICTORIES does happen, it will be either because Clinton suffers a serious setback due to her own campaign's flaws, or because Sanders has does all he can to damage her as a candidate.

If Sanders is just posturing right now, but doesn't turn to negative campaigning, fine. The math is stupid, the posturing is stupid, but it must be hard to do a hell of a lot better than expected but still not come close enough. But if this kind of statement is accompanied by negative flailing that doesn't get him the nomination, doesn't get his platform integrated with the Democratic platform, and handicaps Clinton in the general ... this shall not be pleasant.
posted by maudlin at 4:36 PM on May 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'd like to order Trump and Clinton to a beach somewhere for the rest of May so the rest of us can get a reprieve from what's been the most bitter election cycle since perhaps the 19th century.

Ain't gonna happen. Both candidates are already "pivoting" toward the General Election, with Trump showing off "how he'll attack Hillary". And considering one of Trump's attacks is “Hillary Clinton does not have the stamina … does not have the strength to be president,” Hillary needs to NOT take any breaks.

It is interesting how Trump "likes to brag about his own health and how little sleep he needs" since impaired judgment, cognitive dysfunction and even hallucinations can be caused by sleep deprivation. Now THAT explains a lot.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:03 PM on May 1, 2016




As a reminder, though -- Sanders has less than 1% chance of winning at this point. The best he can hope for is to steal a bunch of wins between now and them and make a "momentum" argument. But Hillary can't clinch a pledged delegate majority before CA and NJ vote June 7 unless it turns out Bernie is actually in the pocket of Goldman.

There's nothing wrong with him running the race to the end. He should. It's when he motivates his followers to harass superdelegates that we start getting into unsavory territory. He needs to focus on finishing strong, maybe stealing California and Puerto Rico, and coming in force to Philadelphia.


Yeah, but conversely, if Hillary can convincingly steal Indiana, Oregon and Puerto Rico, she might not even need to steal California and she can proceed with stealing the nomination so we can all turn our attention to stealing the general election.
posted by indubitable at 6:00 PM on May 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah, but conversely, if Hillary can convincingly steal Indiana, Oregon and Puerto Rico, she might not even need to steal California and she can proceed with stealing the nomination so we can all turn our attention to stealing the general election.

Cute, but no. There are 1016 pledged delegates yet to be decided. 694 of them are decided on June 7. Hillary is about 360-370 from the magic 2026 pledged delegate majority. Even if Hillary takes 100% of the vote in all the primaries and caucuses between now and June 6, she still won't have a pledged delegate majority.
posted by dw at 6:33 PM on May 1, 2016


Here's what I think a positive outcome for Bernie would look like. 10 point win in California, blowouts in the other western and northern states, play to a draw in NM. A 90 delegate pickup in the closing six weeks. Not enough to overcome Hillary, obviously, but a nice enough ending that you can feel good about finishing strong and can make some noise at the convention.

This still assumes he can move the needle in California by anywhere from 10-15 points in the next five weeks. But if he could, it would bode very well for a more liberal/socialist Democratic party in the coming years.

(It also assumes some staggeringly large blowouts in PR, the Dakotas, and Montana. PR is the most doubtful one, but even a draw there has Bernie ending +66.)
posted by dw at 6:51 PM on May 1, 2016


I don't think Sanders needs to pick up a single delegate between now and the convention for Clinton to realize the only way to get those votes is to tack further left. And I think she realizes she won't lose any D votes by doing so.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:06 PM on May 1, 2016


Ted Cruz For Human President

"I have been incubated from birth to be your overlord"
posted by Cookiebastard at 7:43 PM on May 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Ted Cruz For Human President

Dammit, is this about those glistening eggs again
posted by saturday_morning at 7:48 PM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


There are 1016 pledged delegates yet to be decided. 694 of them are decided on June 7. Hillary is about 360-370 from the magic 2026 pledged delegate majority.

True, but she can also agree with Bernie that superDs should follow their state's vote. Per maudlin's comment, gives her 2,018 total delegates right now. She would only need 8 more, meaning by that very reasonable count she'll have it clinched Tuesday night.
posted by msalt at 11:29 PM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


wonder if Cruz is telling himself right now that God very well may other plans for him. I mean, it would be a reasonable thing to think in such a circumstance, but with Cruz it would be so much more literal than most
posted by angrycat at 12:50 AM on May 2, 2016


She would only need 8 more, meaning by that very reasonable count she'll have it clinched Tuesday night.

There are 4766 total delegates, 4051 pledged, 715 unpledged or superdelegates. 50% + 1 is 2384. If she swept every superdelegate and pledged delegate from now on and we used Bernie's winner-take-all demand, the earliest she can clinch is June 5.

People have been leaving the superdelegates out of calculations because they aren't bound to a delegate. There's been an assumption that they will vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, so that's been the focus. But 2384 has always been the actual magic number.
posted by dw at 6:14 AM on May 2, 2016


This weekend I was able to see Cruz's father preach on the campaign trail. If Cruz seems singleminded, I no longer wonder why. His father has all the fervor of the saved immigrant for America and the rest of it is saved for the church.

I guess when he was 13 his father had him memorize the constitution and then took him around the state reciting it. It's supposed to be a story of how he was always destined to be a leader but it just sounds kind of sad to me. I've met those guys who were raised like that, and it's always kind of sad. My heart really goes out to him.
posted by corb at 6:21 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I dunno, it seems more duplicitous to me. For people with such supposed reverence for the Constitution, both Cruzes seem obsessed with overturning it in order to achieve Christian Dominion of the government.

You can either follow the Constitution or you can seek Christian Dominion. You can't do both. Seeking the second automatically means any claims to the first are mere lies.
posted by sotonohito at 6:31 AM on May 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Indiana is the first last stand for a Republican convention that goes beyond the first ballot. Cruz needs a convincing win there, or I'm pretty sure it's effectively over -- even if Trump doesn't quite get to a majority of pledged delegates, he's extremely likely to get close enough to be able to pick up enough from the limited pool of unpledged delegates to put him over the top.

If Cruz *does* win Indiana convincingly, there will be other last stands coming up after that. But he doesn't get to them without passing through this one first.
posted by kyrademon at 6:31 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


kyrademon: "If Cruz *does* win Indiana convincingly, there will be other last stands coming up after that. But he doesn't get to them without passing through this one first."

Cruz is down by 15% here in Indiana.
posted by double block and bleed at 6:38 AM on May 2, 2016


It's kind of horrifying because it shouldn't matter in a sane world, but I'm sure that Cruz's numbers dropped sharply after the basketball ring debacle. That's like going to Texas and saying "Remember the Alamo" as a question.
posted by sotonohito at 6:41 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've met those guys who were raised like that, and it's always kind of sad. My heart really goes out to him.

I've known people who have been pushed like that. Some have breakdowns when they realize they can't fulfill what their parents expect of them. Some just never get off the idea they're special, separate from everyone else, "anointed" if you will.

Based on his history, I think Cruz has been all the world either accepting or rejecting his "wisdom," and that it's all very polar. I'm not sure I want that in a president. Dubya was like that, but he had a measure of humility. Cruz, well, I don't see it.

Cruz will be a senator for life in Texas if he chooses. Even with that state's coming demographic shifts, he's well positioned to hold that seat. Question is, given his current ceiling in the Senate, and given his belief that he is "anointed" to be a true leader, will he stick around to do that? If things go as poorly the next five weeks as it looks they will, will Cruz have a midlife crisis and bail on politics altogether like Rubio is trying to do?
posted by dw at 7:00 AM on May 2, 2016


Thanks for the math fix on Democratic delegates, dw.
posted by msalt at 7:22 AM on May 2, 2016


In this morning's NPR coverage of Bobby Knight supporting Trump, they highlighted all the sports "rebels" who now back Trump, and commented that this won't change anything, because anyone who thought highly of Knight (or Mike Tyson, or John Daly, or Dennis Rodman) is already a Trump supporter.

And then I realized Trump is pretty much standing in a hall of mirrors, each with their own bit of distortion, but they're all the same - loud-mouth, blow-hard idiots who have done well at something, and that thing isn't politics.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:40 AM on May 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


Add Mike Ditka to that list. I hope at some point he gets them all on a stage together at once.
posted by readery at 7:49 AM on May 2, 2016


Bernie's Bad End
At this point it’s as if Sanders is determined to validate everything liberal skeptics have been saying all along about his unwillingness to face reality — and all of it for, maybe, a few weeks of additional fundraising, at the expense of any future credibility and goodwill. Isn’t there anyone who can tell him to stop before it’s too late?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:49 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
"The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised."
posted by Trochanter at 8:42 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is it just me, or is there something really weird about that Rasmussen poll showing Trump leading 41-38 over Clinton? For one thing, it's spotting Clinton ten points lower than the average of all the other recent polls. There's some weird gaming going on here.
posted by dw at 8:56 AM on May 2, 2016


Wasn't Rasmussen one of the worst polls last cycle?
posted by saturday_morning at 9:08 AM on May 2, 2016


and bail on politics altogether like Rubio is trying to do?

Unless you have some inside baseball data that I don't, I wouldn't call Rubio's trajectory to be bailing on politics. From a practical standpoint, he's done virtually nothing else with his professional life. I had forgotten that I was living in West Miami when he was a commissioner; that's not really a full time gig and he must have paid the bills some other way, but he quickly left that for higher office. He was out of law school for less than 5 years before he was in the FL state leg.

Could he just leave behind all the connections and go practice law in an unrelated way? Maybe, but why would he? People leave the senate and go work their connections. If you're a big enough wig you get something high profile. It's hard to find people who not only left the senate something other than feet-first but who also did it on their own rather than at the will of the electorate, but we can check the wikipedia list of former senators.

I'll leave out Allen since he wanted to stay. Wayne Allard chose not to run again. Lobbying firm. Abraham was bounced. Akaka left on purpose but we'll give him a pass on more activity since he's in his 90s. Armstrong retired on purpose. Spent fifteen years on corporate boards, seemingly focused on energy. You can look at Kent Conrad who left on purpose... in a think tank.

I don't think it's impossible to find someone who left the Senate and did something that leveraged their experience but it's pretty rare (and in fairness, who leaves behind all the connections and skills they learned in an executive-type white collar job? Even if you "pivot" you want to use what you have done and learned in your work up till then.). Someone who is still mid-40s and needs to make a living through retirement and who wanted to stay in politics? He may stop running for office but he'll keep his toe in.

I wouldn't be shocked to see him try for Florida Governor if he still has people there who like him enough. That doesn't seem like a real deep bench, given the people who have run for that office in the last dozen years. It would be enough of a power bump to not be embarassing to him.
posted by phearlez at 9:11 AM on May 2, 2016


Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties

Much of that article reads as though it were cribbed from a Sanders campaign press release. Which is funny when you consider that one of the dem campaigns has been repeatedly admonished by the FEC for irregularities surrounding fundraising activities and record-keeping-- and it's not the Clinton campaign.
posted by dersins at 9:11 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have a real problem with him basically deciding that following the expressed will of the voters is absolutely necessary when he's winning and entirely optional when he's not

My major problem with Sanders' taking the same line about winning via super delegates that his top campaign folks did in the wake of NY is my increasing suspicion that he is not in control of his own campaign. And you know, if he can't control his own staff, he really is not fit to be President.

As for this being a contested D convention, I think it is already plain that on the first ballot, the contest will be over. The big question is what Bernie, his supporters, and all that money will do to keep Trump out of the White House and seek an overwhelming D victory in November.
posted by bearwife at 9:18 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


You can either follow the Constitution or you can seek Christian Dominion. You can't do both.

I think actually, after coming into contact with it, that you can. Christian Dominionism thinks that conservative Christians should be in charge, but it doesn't say law should be changed to ensure this happens. It seems to be more of a "it is our moral duty to seek leadership" rather than "the unbelievers should be banned."

I mean, there's certainly many good reasons to oppose Dominionism, but there's no need to assume they are hypocrites. People can be concerning in their logically consistent true belief too.
posted by corb at 9:18 AM on May 2, 2016


dersins, only one candidate?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:20 AM on May 2, 2016


Christian Dominionism thinks that conservative Christians should be in charge, but it doesn't say law should be changed to ensure this happens. It seems to be more of a "it is our moral duty to seek leadership" rather than "the unbelievers should be banned."

That's explicitly the opposite of every other explanation of political Christian Dominionism I've read seen. My understanding is that it generally olds that it's the moral duty of Christians to take leadership so that they can change laws.

It might be true that some Dominionists don't believe that laws should be changed in order for them to be in charge, but if you're seeking Christian Dominionism you're, as I understand it, seeking to change the law to comport with a specific set of biblical interpretations of what the law should be. Those changes would necessarily entail amending the Constitution, because the myriad protections afforded under the current Constitution would invalidate not only many of the specific laws proposed by Dominionists but also the underlying framework of rule-by-religion.

So, yes, I don't understand how one could reasonably claim to follow the Constitution and also seek Christian Dominion. The only out would be 'hey, you can amend the Constitution, so technically we'd be following it!' but to claim that would be render the idea of 'following the Constitution' nonsensical in the context intended.

I tend to interpret most Dominionist claims of 'following the Constitution' as interpreting the Constitution as enshrining Christian values in the basis of our government, which is to say wildly misunderstanding the Constitution. These are the same people who claim that 'America is truly a Christian nation,' and mean 'truly a Christian-in-the-way-I'm-personally-Christian nation' and point to a subset of the founding fathers as proof while ignoring, say, Deism or the Jefferson Bible.
posted by cjelli at 9:39 AM on May 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think actually, after coming into contact with it, that you can. Christian Dominionism thinks that conservative Christians should be in charge, but it doesn't say law should be changed to ensure this happens. It seems to be more of a "it is our moral duty to seek leadership" rather than "the unbelievers should be banned."

I agree with corb. The Dominionists, for the most part, believe they should be in charge and God will make them leaders. Some of them have gone as far as talk of armed rebellion to establish a theocracy, but a vast, vast majority don't believe that.

That said, Seven Mountains is worrying in that they do have a theocratic tinge. They want Christians at the top of every one of their designated groups. Get the presidency, you get the courts, and there's two mountains down. Change the laws to put God in charge of the family (via Biblical laws over the family), there's a third. Dismantle the Dept of Education and push for school vouchers and you're part of the way to a fourth.
posted by dw at 9:49 AM on May 2, 2016


So Dominionists will gain control and then... accede to the will of the people on abortion/equal marriage/teaching evolution in schools/letting women speak?

As if.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:50 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Christian Dominionism thinks that conservative Christians should be in charge, but it doesn't say law should be changed to ensure this happens.

Rafael Cruz believes that the separation between church and state is a "lie" that should be destroyed by any means necessary.

In any case, these are the people who want to keep wars going in the Middle East because it will bring about a time when a Christian kingdom rises in Israel so that Jews like myself will supposedly happily convert, and if not happily, at the point of the sword. Considering that 75% of evangelicals think that time is approaching, these are not the kind of people I feel comfortable anywhere near the levers of power.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:25 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think it's really, really important to see your enemies as they actually are, and not as you wish them to be. There's enough wrong with this theory that there's really no need to invent stuff.

It's really tempting to read a lot more stuff into the Constitution than is actually there. It's really not a Grand Statement of Principles, like, say, the Declaration of Independence. If you read it in its text - and I promise, these guys do - it's a set of guiding rules and kind of technical guidance for how to operate. You and I might say "Well, but the court in Blah year said this, so precedent", but it is completely possible - and completely logically consistent - to have a minimalist interpretation of the Constitution where only the actual words said in it matter.

So in many ways a lot of us have the idea that, say, the First Amendment says that no law can or should be created that has a religious basis - we see the separation of Church and State, and we think "well, religion and politics shouldn't mix." But that's not what the literal text says, and if you're talking to a literalist, be sure that they are going to take it that way.

The literal text says that Congress will not make laws about an establishment of religion, which many people take to mean "a specific church", and that it won't stop the free exercise of religion, which many people take to mean "the freedom to worship in your particular way, or not to be forced to church if you don't want to go."

I have spent a lot of time kind of embedded in this in the last few months, and I am learning so much about how it kind of actually works on the inside. It is really different, in ways that honestly surprise me, because I did not expect to see them.

Cruz and his father and the dominonists in the campaign are actually astonishingly respectful of other people's - what I can only call 'active religions'. They carve out space for Jews in the campaign to have an undisturbed Shabbat. They carve out space for Seventh Day Adventists. They carve out space for basically any active religion when you say "My religion won't let me do this." There's even reluctant space carved out for people who refuse to traffic in money for various purposes. I 100% believe they truly, sincerely believe that everyone from every church that they understand as a religion should be able to worship in the way that they believe in.

But they do definitely want a nation with what I would call a Judeo-Christian focus on morality. How does this work? How can you believe in one and not the other? I think in part because laws must be based on some morality. At its core, you can't have laws without morality - people believing 'murder is wrong' or 'stealing is wrong'. Some of these laws contradict cultural practices and beliefs, but we enforce them anyway. i have begun to believe it may be impossible to create a law that someone doesn't believe is immoral. And so these guys don't envision a world in which unbelievers are rounded up. They envision a world where unbelievers or different-believers are kindly tolerated and not elected to any position where they can make laws.

Again, I want to state - I am not arguing for Christian Dominionism, it has a LOT OF ISSUES. But this is where they're coming from, and I truly think they're sincere in it. I have yet to see where their actions don't match their words on it.
posted by corb at 10:30 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


they're all just pawns in Martin O'Malley's deviously brilliant game of nine-dimensional chess

You're a buff guy! Well, congratulations! You got your campaign suspended! Now what's the next step in your master plan?
posted by Apocryphon at 10:32 AM on May 2, 2016


But they do definitely want a nation with what I would call a Judeo-Christian focus on morality. How does this work? How can you believe in one and not the other? I think in part because laws must be based on some morality

You've lost me here... "laws must be based on some morality, so let's pick Judeo Christian"? That's not a logic that really follows. Also, I think it's arguable that laws need to be based on any religious basis.
posted by zutalors! at 10:39 AM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


And so these guys don't envision a world in which unbelievers are rounded up. They envision a world where unbelievers or different-believers are kindly tolerated and not elected to any position where they can make laws.

Well, if that's all it is...

But they do definitely want a nation with what I would call a Judeo-Christian focus on morality.

Dear Ted Cruz, Quit Using 'Judeo-Christian Values' To Exploit My Faith

Seriously though, the Cruz campaign has used anti-Semitic dog-whistles, and Rafael Cruz has said some really batshit crazy stuff that is scary when you realize that he's the guy who molded Ted to become President. Trying to minimize that by saying how "sincere" they are in their faith isn't helping.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:43 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think their argument goes 'laws must be based on morality" ----> "what is the best morality?" -----> "Judeo Christian Laws Forever". Again, I'm just an outsider with a Poli-Sci background who views this all as a fascinating sociological phenomenon, so I may be missing stuff, but that's how it seems at least. I mean, I'm a conservative, and they're conservatives, but that doesn't mean we are actually the same.

There's also a lot of talk about a "shining city on a hill", which Google tells me is a thing that the original Puritans talked about in terms of America - apparently early Puritans were like "We will follow God and God will make us succeed, and if we don't succeed it will be because we failed to honor God". And apparently also from the Google, the shit was out of fashion until JFK of all people brought it back, then it was stolen by Reagan, and now forevermore will echo in Republican politics.
posted by corb at 10:44 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Christian Dominionists don't want to privilege Christian morality, exactly. They want to privilege objective morality, and they just think Christians happen to have the best understanding of what objective morality is (and Jews have the second-best). They think moral "laws" are like "laws" of nature. That moral laws are objective facts which we so far only approximately understand. But some people understand them better than others. There are right answers and wrong answers about morality, and while we should have enough humility to believe that we are probably wrong about some things, it's silly to pretend that we can't know anything, or that everyone is equally knowledgeable.

I agree with Corb that it's a self-consistent philosophy. I just happen to personally believe that human morality is based on a set of mammalian and particularly human instincts, and that our instincts can contradict each other (unlike the laws of nature). The instinct toward loyalty to your group can contradict the instinct toward fairness. Etc. So while I think some things are "objectively" wrong (in the sense that they violate the moral instincts of almost all humans) I don't believe that every act is either objectively right or objectively wrong.

But yeah, if I accepted that premise, I think it would lead logically to trying to get laws aligned to my understanding of objective morality, or else be guilty of being guilty by inaction of failing to stop immoral stuff from happening.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:46 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Andrew Sullivan recently said:
To call this fascism doesn’t do justice to fascism. Fascism had, in some measure, an ideology and occasional coherence that Trump utterly lacks.
Is he just misquoting Big Lebowski?
posted by clawsoon at 10:46 AM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


The city on a hill is John Winthrop and I learned about that in middle school. There's nothing new or Dominionist about it.
posted by zutalors! at 10:48 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I 100% believe they truly, sincerely believe that everyone from every church that they understand as a religion should be able to worship in the way that they believe in.

The religions that they "understand" and approve of are remarkably few and far between.
posted by malocchio at 10:50 AM on May 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


dersins, only one candidate?

It's quite misleading to post the FEC request for additional information and then not mention her campaign provided an updated filing within the month. Also, they haven't had issues since.

But if you go to the FEC filing page for Bernie 2016, it has received five letters from the FEC--going back to July!--and has only provided a response to one of them.

It is not uncommon to receive a RFAI. What raises eyebrows is when you get them month after month and then keep begging off responding.
posted by schroedinger at 10:51 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:58 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


They carve out space for basically any active religion when you say "My religion won't let me do this."

Almost every sect of Judaism says that under no circumstances should an actual life, that of a mother be placed above that of a potential life, that of a fetus. A fetus is only a potential life until it is born. Allowing a mother to die so its fetus can live is murder, which is a violation of one of our highest commandments.

Here's Ted Cruz on abortion: "Every human life is a precious gift from God and should be protected from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death." Also: "On the day before the Wisconsin Republican primary, Ted Cruz told attendees at a town hall in Madison that states should have the ability to ban all cases of abortion, including situations of rape and incest"

"Any active religion" except those he disagrees with.
posted by zarq at 11:03 AM on May 2, 2016 [20 favorites]


I'm Jewish, corb, and I can tell you that on moral ground I don't feel the least bit comfortable with Cruz, not least because he consistently lies and because he has often elevated his own self interest over the welfare of everyone else -- case in point being the government shut down. I'd add that I have a huge problem with someone who says he is a Christian first ever taking an oath which requires him to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That's an oath to defend and protect the Constitution as it stands, not as he'd like it to read.

Nor, speaking as a religious, believing person, do I buy that religion equates to morality or that religious people are moral. Please, there are daily examples showing how untrue this is. Religion can bolster morality but it is not the same thing.
posted by bearwife at 11:14 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am changing my allegiance away from the Democratic Party and to Andrew D. Basiago. Vote Andy as president, for either 2016, in the future or technically I kinda guess in the past. It's complicated, but he's been endorsed. Vote Andy. If you haven't voted for Andy already. Maybe you have?
posted by Wordshore at 11:15 AM on May 2, 2016


Trump: 'Indians have gone wild' over Clinton's 'off the reservation' remark

I might have just snorted Diet Coke out of my nose.
posted by dw at 11:16 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Laws against murder do not have to have a moral basis, even though we think of them that way. We outlaw and punish murder because it infringes on the rights of citizens, to, you know, be alive. Similar for other laws. Religion does not have to be a component.
posted by agregoli at 11:18 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


To clarify: Cruz's morality is not my morality. I back Cruz because I think he's a lesser evil to Trump's brownshirts, and I think he's at least sincere in wanting to make a better America, but like: I can only tell you why I think Cruz and some of his supporters believe things, I cannot actually believe them.
posted by corb at 11:19 AM on May 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


corb, I see what you're saying but I don't see how it really conflicts with what I said.

Note first off, that you had to qualify their belief in the free exercise of religion. They support it for "every church that they understand as a religion". I note that one of the things the Christian far right has been doing lately is trying to define "religion" so that it means only Christianity and (if they're humble enough) Judaism, and explicitly so it doesn't include Islam. Google "Islam is not a religion" and you'll find a huge number of pages arguing just that, explicitly so as to exempt Islam from the First Amendment.

Similarly, I'm not sure how there's really any significant difference between enforcing their religion by laws that everyone is forced to obey, and changing the law so that only they are in office. The one kind of necessitates the other, don't you think? And once they've made it so that liberalism, homosexuality, being female, etc are either make you a felon so you can't vote anyway or simply disqualify you fromvoting or holding office than basically they'll be the only ones eligible anyway.

So yes, if you want to argue that they claim not to be in favor of abolishing freedom of religion, but that they do this by basically labeling everything they want to ban as not really religion then I suppose you are technically correct. But I don't see how that makes any real difference to the people being tossed into the gulag.

Once a person has reached the point where they've "interpreted" the Constitution in such a way that religions they don't like can be banned, and they can enact Christian Sharia then they've reached the point where they aren't actually talking about the Constitution as it really exists and we've entered the Onion article where the man is a passionate defender of what he imagines the Constitutions says.

I agree that it's important to understand others as they see themselves. And I don't doubt for a minute that they all imagine that they're able to both work for Christian Sharia **AND** believe in the principles of the US Constitution. But while I recognize that they may want to imagine that, I don't see why I need to play along with them.

The more I see of Cruz the more I hope that Trump wins, not just because he's such a buffoon that I feel sure Clinton can beat him, but because I think he'd be less dangerous if elected. Trump is an opportunistic quasi-fascist, but a true believer in Christian Dominionism seems a lot more threatening to me personally. I live in Texas, I meet with and talk to the sort of people Cruz appeals to on a daily basis, and they are slavering at the thought of finally being able to get all that pesky Church/State separation out of the way so they can enact God's Laws and throw people like me into prison.
posted by sotonohito at 11:32 AM on May 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


OK, I worked out the issue with the Rasmussen poll. They're giving people a third party option, like on this last poll.

That's not the same sort of poll as everyone else is running.
posted by dw at 11:40 AM on May 2, 2016


I refuse to take a stand on whether Trump or Cruz is worse. And I very much disagree with corb's decision to affirmatively back Cruz instead of sitting things out this cycle or even reluctantly supporting Clinton.

However corb is being pretty clear about the fact that she does not agree with Cruz's theocratic leanings and she is trying to critique or explain that perspective immanently. It's a good thing to do and we shouldn't be shouting her down.

I was educated in the Dutch Reformed (Calvinist) tradition and that tradition provides a lot of the intellectual and philosophical underpinnings of this Seven Mountains movement, as far as I can tell by reading things like this. I agree that this is not precisely theocracy as we might imagine it in a pure state -- where a clerical class directly controls the government. In fact these groups are probably quite opposed to the idea of a church-run government or a government-run church. Nevertheless they see the need for politicians who will implement laws that correlate to God's will in the political sphere (sphere is an important word).

In theory, religious freedom can be a part of this ideology -- the idea being that the Church is responsible for the care of souls, not the State; and in fact there may in theory be room for independent minority institutions in a pluralist society. For a relatively liberal example of this ideology you can look at pillarization in the mid-20th century Netherlands and Belgium, and at Christian Democratic movements more broadly.

For a more problematic example, of course, you need to go a few thousand miles south.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:45 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


OK, I worked out the issue with the Rasmussen poll. They're giving people a third party option, like on this last poll.

It's not even a "third party" option - it allows for respondents to interpret the poll as asking "if the election were held today and you had the option of voting for [Sanders/Cruz] in addition to Trump and Clinton, who would you vote for?" It's a terribly written poll.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:48 AM on May 2, 2016


To me the thing about Christian fundamentalist morality is that is significantly overlaps with my notions of morality. Christain fundamentalists and this liberal atheist may disagree about bathroom access for trans people but we agree that murder is bad. I'm seriously not convinced that Donald Trump sees any problem with murder. He wants to kill the families of suspected terrorists. "Bomb the shit out of" ISIS. He reminisces fondly about the days when protesters were carried out of political rallies "on stretchers." He praises Putin, who has had journalists disappeared. He has called for the death penalty for anyone who kills a cop, and it is a measure of HIS respect for the Constitution that he thinks he can do this as president despite the fact that most such killings are not federal crimes. He called for the executions of the Central Park Five despite the fact that they were not even accused of a capital crime, to say nothing of the fact that they turned out to be innocent. He supports water boarding and says he would "do worse." If Ted Cruz agrees with me that these threats are ambominable, then I am grateful to Corb for doing what she can to support Cruz over Trump. Because Trump not only has zero respect for women and Muslims and LGBTQ people (he quickly walked back his statement about bathrooms being fine the way they were) he seems to me to have very little respect for human life in general. I don't know whose political goals are more apalling, but I believe that Trump will have no hesitation in using violence to attain his, whereas I think Cruz believes that some actions are evil and will not use those evil means regardless of how good he believes the ends to be.
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:54 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Cruz wants to carpet bomb the Middle East so...I don't know that he has that much respect for human life either.
posted by zutalors! at 11:57 AM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


*thinks about Googling "Islam is not a religion." Decides going down that gutter will not be a remotely entertaining rabbit hole. Chooses sleep over self-flagellation instead.*
posted by bardophile at 12:03 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


The "Islam is not a religion" trope is odd. It seems to be a bit of lawyerly sophistry intended to prevent Muslim immigration, rather than any literal or philosophical truth.

I also find this amusing because I've heard fundamentalist Christians argue the opposite - i.e. that Christianity is not a mere "religion", because religions are the flawed beliefs and constructs of people, and Christianity is God's revealed truth (in the physical person of his Son Jesus Christ who redeemed mankind's sins, etc).

Is Islam a religion? Is Christianity? The answer seems to be, who's asking, and for what reason?
posted by theorique at 12:19 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]




There have already been Dominionists in positions of power and authority in government, and some of them have been problems. There have been minor contracting scandals (where Dominionist officials, elected or appointed, select other Dominionists' bids on government contracts regardless of rules governing bid selection or the quality of bids); there have been some serious breaches of military rules, including giving passes to civilian Dominionists to parts of bases, including the Pentagon, that they should not have had access to, and privileging Dominionist chaplains over others (there was an Inspector General report on this); in local government, Dominionist officials have time and again been caught refusing to perform the duties of their office because they object to those duties. (Which, a) in the US it's pretty longstanding both in law and in Christian theology that your option is to resign -- you can't be forced to perform a task, but you have no right to the job; and b) they run for the office with the specific intent of refusing to perform the duties of the office, but lie about it. Like, some are running now for county clerk so they can refuse to hand out marriage certificates.)

Dominionists are playing a long game. The leadership of the movement is pretty clear that the ultimate goal is to get rid of the Constitution and reconstitute (or "restore") the US as a wholly Christian nation along Biblical lines (LEAVING ASIDE the total lack of Christian nations appearing in the Bible but whatevs, dawg, it's not a very Biblically-educated theology). However, they envision this as taking several generations to occur. Therefore, it's perfectly all right to tell "outsiders" that the goal RIGHT NOW is to serve in positions of power and make our laws "more Judeo-Christian." They are upfront about this half-truth in their writings for other Dominionists -- that you can't tell outsiders the full game plan because it impedes acceptance by mainstream society. David Chilton (one of the grandfathers of the movement) is explicit: "The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law." Among the steps along the way is removing women's right to vote; rolling back rights for homosexuals; removing public services such as education, health care, and welfare entirely, which will only be provided through churches. Many crimes listed in the Old Testament will now be punishable by Old Testament methods, including stoning, and -- a big favorite -- public executions, but only performed by Old Testament-approved execution methods (stoning, hanging, burning, and beheading). Other punishments would include whipping, indentured servitude, and permanent slavery. Abortion would be punishable by public execution. They are clear that the American judiciary must be abolished (after stacking it with conservative judges and beginning to place Old Testament law in place) and they are utterly clear that the Constitution ultimately cannot remain in place. The order followers to have lots and lots of babies to hasten a majority that can impose its will on the US, to further the goal of overthrowing the US in favor of a Christian theocracy -- they follow many avenues of influence at once and, again, look at it as a multigenerational struggle that will take decades of incremental steps.

There are harder and softer Dominionists, but Dominionists are terrifying and absolutely their goal is the overthrow of the Constitution. (And you know that I say this as a devout Christian myself who isn't nearly as bothered by religious participation in public life as the run of the mill mefite.) There has never been any other goal. There are interim, partial goals, but the ultimate goal is the destruction of the Constitution. Now, Ted Cruz is not a Dominionist. His father apparently is (although apparently of a slightly softer variety), and Ted Cruz was raised in Dominionist circles and is clearly very influenced by Dominionist theology. That in itself raises some questions, but my bigger concern is how, through his father, he is leveraging Dominionist political networks. Which is sort-of like leveraging the KKK, and he should have to answer some real hard questions about why he's positioning himself to appeal to people who want to overthrow the Constitution and start publicly executing people for, well, just about everything, and why he is engaging in outreach with such groups and fundraising from them.

The other profound concern I have about Dominionists, and about Ted Cruz, is that Dominionists simply reject factual information that doesn't concord with their theology. (I realize this is a larger problem in American society right now that appears in many places, but some of the seeds of that problem come from Dominionists and indeed were specifically and deliberately sown by them to help destroy our institutions of public life.) For example, as a small example, if you tell them "Hey our comprehensive sex ed program in this state is reducing teen pregnancies and abortions and delaying the onset of sexual activity!" they'll simply reply, "No it's not, because God only wants you to teach abstinence." They simply refuse the facts on the ground when the facts don't accord with what they believe. So, on to the terrifying example: If you talk to a Dominionist about global warming, they will tell you it doesn't exist because God won't allow the world to be destroyed in that fashion. It's not part of God's plan for the earth, so it isn't happening. Man doesn't control God's creation; God does; therefore man can't -- just can't -- have the power to destroy it. So any evidence that shows that man IS destroying the earth must be false and therefore should be ignored. (In fact, they denounce anyone who accepts climate change as "Pagan" -- even devout Christians. And they consider them fair targets for harassment and retaliation because of their Paganism and rejection of God.) (In fact part II, they consider environmentalism itself a front for the abortion lobby, to use the government to force women to abort their fetuses to prevent imaginary global warming.)

So even if we totally leave aside the long-term goal of overthrowing the Constitution, which I consider a highly unlikely event (although certainly they would create local pockets of misery and oppression in the short term), in the short term they make it literally impossible to confront ANY of the problems our country is facing because they simply reject all facts that don't concord with their theological beliefs. You can't move forward on anything -- taxes, education, climate change, immigration, nuclear Iran -- if the facts are just rejected as irrelevant. It'd be kind-of like what we've got going on now where some media outlets constantly deny and rebut facts they dislike, but ratcheted up to 11. (If you think we're at 11 now, you have not spent much time talking to the truly crazy corners of American evangelical theology, it gets way crazier than we have yet been treated to in mainstream public life.) Sure, Ted Cruz doesn't get to pick his Congress, but he does get to appoint the federal bureaucracy, and how do you think things will go if the IRS is headed by someone who simply doesn't believe in taxes and adjusts the numbers to concord with his beliefs? We've already had a taste of this sort of thing with Congress's science committees and their insane witchhunts; it will be like that, but across THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT. No data that comes out of the federal government (and that's like, all the data) will be trustworthy any longer. Military leadership positions will go to men whose beliefs override the reality on the ground, and who will ignore the reality of the strategic and tactical situation when it fails to concord with their beliefs. People will die. That's the reality. Other people will die for their beliefs because of their refusal to confront factual realities that don't concord with their theology.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:24 PM on May 2, 2016 [40 favorites]


Meanwhile, in Indiana: Carly Fiorina falls off stage while introducing Ted Cruz and family. (Ted doesn't seem to notice.)

a+++++ would watch again
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:27 PM on May 2, 2016


how do you think things will go if the IRS is headed by someone who simply doesn't believe in taxes and adjusts the numbers to concord with his beliefs?

No thank you please.

Sincerely,
All tax professionals
posted by melissasaurus at 12:30 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


So it's Clinton-Trump. That's clear now. Time to buckle up, this is going to be a trash fire.
posted by Justinian at 12:32 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


That was clear months ago
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:35 PM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


(If you think we're at 11 now, you have not spent much time talking to the truly crazy corners of American evangelical theology, it gets way crazier than we have yet been treated to in mainstream public life.)

Dare I ask for some links? (This whole comment is fascinating by the way)

Time to buckle up, this is going to be a trash fire.


GOING to be? Have you been in cryosleep for the past 10 months or
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:35 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Carly Fiorina falls off stage

Reminds me of Kelsey Grammer. Get a few more and we can have a supercut!
posted by FJT at 12:37 PM on May 2, 2016


schroedinger, please stop moving the goalposts.
and it's Bernie's campaign that's got a legion of excuses for the multiple FEC letters documenting illegal donations and missing millions of campaign funds

It's quite misleading to post the FEC request for additional information and then not mention her campaign provided an updated filing within the month. Also, they haven't had issues since.

1 2 3 4

You clearly stated that only the Sanders campaign had multiple FEC letters, then when I point out *one* of Clinton's, you say it' s the only one. Give me a break. So if Sanders amends in response, it's "a legion of excuses", but when Clinton does it, it's nothing to see here move along?

I am concerned about Sanders' October RFAI not having an amended return (maybe close enough that they incorporated it into year-end?), but the *July* letter you brought up was issued in *March 2016* and they're within the window to respond.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 12:39 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Thanks Eyebrows. What a great explication of how far religion can deviate from basic morality. (Like love, tolerance, respect, truthfulness, justness, refusal to take life . . .) The vision of the US as a wholly Christian nation run on biblical lines reminds me intensely of the actual caliphate ISIS is currently running. Which is also anything but moral. And, to the extent anyone wants to say that these folks can't really be serious, it won't happen, that's just what people said about the loony reactionary sect of Muslim believers who are ISIS.
posted by bearwife at 12:44 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


FJT: "Reminds me of Kelsey Grammer . Get a few more and we can have a supercut!"

It happened to both Gary Bauer and Bob Dole, as I recall.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:44 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


From my decades as a fundamentalist Christian, I can say that -- at least in my experience, from the people by and with whom I was raised -- sure, both they and my current atheistic self believe that murder is morally wrong, but our definitions of murder do not match. For example, I do recall a fair amount of discussion about what is murder during the anti-abortion murders of the 90s. Sure, with outsiders it was a tragedy (though always accompanied with a "but they had it coming"), but among the deacons, in the pastor's home, and in the close-knit study groups, it was justified, celebrated, and, thus, not considered by them to be murder at all.

Anyway, just a brief cautionary tale on thinking Christian fundamentalists share your morals. Sure, they encompass many, many different groups, and their morals are not uniform, but ... in my experience with those sorts of groups it's pretty important to know what they think they mean when they say "Murder is wrong" or something of the like.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 12:45 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Man doesn't control God's creation; God does; therefore man can't -- just can't -- have the power to destroy it.

Have these people never heard of nuclear weapons?
posted by Gelatin at 12:47 PM on May 2, 2016


a foolish consistency &c
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:49 PM on May 2, 2016


showbiz_liz Well, here in Texas we've got Mary Lou Bruer. Who will be a member of the State Board of Education after the elections (she's running as a Republican in an area that would not vote Democrat if Jesus himself was running as a Democrat). She believes that global warming is a lie, that pre-K programs exist for the purpose of indoctrinating children into homosexuality, that President Obama is not merely a Kenyan Muslim, but that in college he was a gay prostitute, and that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. She will soon be dictating what goes into Texas school books.

And in some parts of Texas she's viewed as too liberal.

There's a guy who calls himself Coach Dave. He believes that Obama is literally possessed by demons and that US laws are literally demonically inspired. He tends to see demons everywhere, he's anti-Trump and has spoken extensively about the specific demons which may be influencing Trump. He is not alone and his videos get lots of eyeballs.

Pat Robertson is still a thing, but he's a bit old and not so edgy anymore.

You could check out the forums over at Rapture Ready are filled with all sorts of people believing stuff truly turned up to 11.

Plus there's the ongoing display of complete detachment from reality over at World Net Daily.

Though the WND people are kind of lame and mainstream by true fundamentalist standards.
posted by sotonohito at 12:53 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


So it's Clinton-Trump. That's clear now. Time to buckle up, this is going to be a trash fire.

Buddy, just the other day Brad DeLong, an old Clinton Administration hand who worked under Larry Summers's Treasury Department, openly expressed excitement for all the hippie-punching we'll do in the general, characterizing the Sanders campaign in terms that would make members of the HUAC nod in agreement. It's been a trash fire for a while.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:58 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's not even a "third party" option - it allows for respondents to interpret the poll as asking "if the election were held today and you had the option of voting for [Sanders/Cruz] in addition to Trump and Clinton, who would you vote for?" It's a terribly written poll.

It's only a terribly written poll if its goal is to learn about the relative strength of Clinton and Trump in the general election. It could be a very well written poll if the goal is to create the impression of a close race or to get people to bring attention to rasmussen.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:01 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Dare I ask for some links? (This whole comment is fascinating by the way)"

The thing is that they use a lot of "code" and you have to be pretty steeped in the language of American evangelical theology from about 1860 onward. Sometimes you're reading and it sounds like bog-standard Calvinism or even Lutheranism, but there are all kinds of nutty dogwhistles that don't mean to insiders what they mean to outsiders.

Here's a website where they try to sound pretty mainline; the links down the left-hand side will give you a bunch of their basic belief statements. You may enjoy the bit about how modern science is magic and only science that concords with Dominionist theology is actual science; or this bit about how psychology is bad and child psychology is worse (especially enjoy #8 where they're literally Freudian in how backwards their understanding of psychology is; #10 is in code but what it means is that vegetarianism is psychologically deviant); back in the kitchen ladies (women and children oppressing men is code for "women shouldn't vote"); STATES can establish state churches, just not the feds, it's those pesky Civil War amendments fucking things up again, and PS humanism is a religion and you're being forced by the courts to practice it; this one I don't even have to sarcastically sum up, just quote, "The liberal arts, the arts of freedom, involve the abandonment of God, truth, and law for the affirmation of man."; super pissy about history which makes sense because history is a conspiracy.

If you want to read some global-warming-specific crazy, try the Cornwall Alliance and read their statments, but they are VERY couched in code and dog-whistles. (They particularly have it in for the Evangelical Environmental Network, with such attacks as "In 2011, touting exaggerated numbers and harms, the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) claimed, “being pro-life means protecting the unborn from mercury pollution.” But such pollution does not kill. Rather, at worst it causes reduction in neurological development so slight as to be nearly undetectable. ") and they are pro-pollution because: "But the ethical differences between abortion and pollution are glaring: The intent differs. In abortion, the intent is to kill a baby. In energy production, the intent is to provide the energy people need to sustain life and health, and the pollution that is a byproduct of energy production is anunintended risk (see Deuteronomy 19:4–12)."

Keep in mind, these are the places where they're trying to be acceptable to the mainstream and to speak in dogwhistles and code and to sound reasonable and acceptable to average Americans. (And you can see just from those how successful Dominionists have been at dominating mainstream right-wing Christianity with their rhetoric if not their theology ... and you can also see the bits where oil companies and the Koch Brothers could and have smoothly moved in to exploit their beliefs.) If you wander into some of their own message boards, it gets A LOT CRAZIER. A lot of the "official" crazy stuff appears in books written for other Dominionists, both because mainstream people don't buy them and therefore don't read the crazy (the online stuff tends to be a lot more anodyne) and can't copy/paste it easily, and because they have a whole structure of publishing houses and whatnot where a lot of money flows through. Like here's some picking through Dominionist books for Dominionist-to-Dominionist quotes (execution for homosexuality and adultery both) and comparing it to Dominionist-to-mainstream-press quotes.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:05 PM on May 2, 2016 [28 favorites]


Yes, it is so productive to conflate people who worked for BILL Clinton some 25 years ago with Hillary Clinton's campaign. And fair, too.

I do agree that DeLong, who is a professor and a blogger, but NOT in the HRC campaign, is a jerk. But I fail to see how his obnoxious thoughts prove something about Clinton, the current candidate.

I'd add that I think the reason Trump v. anyone is a trash fire is because Trump.
posted by bearwife at 1:08 PM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


DeLong has always struck me as a very intelligent person who thinks this gives him license to be a jackass.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:11 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


But I fail to see how his obnoxious thoughts prove something about Clinton, the current candidate.

I don't know that they do, but I don't think people would bother to call their losing opponents Guevaristas and would-be Comintern propagandists in an election year that was not a trash fire.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:15 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


You clearly stated that only the Sanders campaign had multiple FEC letters, then when I point out *one* of Clinton's, you say it' s the only one.

First, did you read the other letters you linked? There's the one with financial irregularities that her campaign responded to, and then the others are literally "fill out this memo field". Which is a far cry from "you have foreign donors" and "$10 million is not accounted for."

Second, I am not sure why it would be confusing that I'd express more concern over a campaign that repeatedly had these problems versus once.
posted by schroedinger at 1:15 PM on May 2, 2016


I'm going to miss Joe Biden (in which our VP bets with a reporter on whether a Tesla or a new Cadillac is faster and loses, then discusses with a Cardinal at the Vatican).
posted by zachlipton at 1:19 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


GOING to be? Have you been in cryosleep for the past 10 months or

I think y'all are grossly underestimating Trump's abilities in the trash-fire department. I think he has not yet begun to fight trash fire.
posted by Justinian at 1:24 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


So Clinton's $8 million discrepancy is "financial irregularities" but Sanders' is "$10 million is not accounted for". Again, utterly partisan hackery.

Must I really dredge up the 2008 election, in which she had RFAIs in every quarter and month? Just one sample has 100 pages of excessive/prohibited contributions to Clinton's campaign.

Maybe it's just that candidates don't get it right the first time around? Or that getting lots of donations from many people leads to such issues?

I've been willing to admit issues I have with both Sanders and Clinton. You, on the other hand, seem to relish partisan attacks and are blind to your own candidate's actions.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 1:26 PM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Rustic Etruscan: "I don't know that they do, but I don't think people would bother to call their losing opponents Guevaristas and would-be Comintern propagandists in an election year that was not a trash fire."

No, that's pretty standard DeLong.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:28 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


At this point there's only one Dem candidate so
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:29 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


However, they envision this as taking several generations to occur. Therefore, it's perfectly all right to tell "outsiders" that the goal RIGHT NOW is to serve in positions of power and make our laws "more Judeo-Christian." They are upfront about this half-truth in their writings for other Dominionists -- that you can't tell outsiders the full game plan because it impedes acceptance by mainstream society.

Eyebrows, I just want to say that I really, really appreciate your encyclopedic knowledge of various religious institutions and movements - always, but especially in this instance. That's really helpful for understanding why there's such a gap between the people that I am encountering and the way that people are talking about Dominionists - because the people I'm encountering are either "soft" Dominionists, or they are dominionists who are couching their ideas in this 'for now' language, or they are people who have heard the 'for now' language but are not themselves dominionists.
posted by corb at 1:50 PM on May 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


[Running out of ways to say cut it out for the nth time with the Clinton v Sanders "you[r candidate] sucks" "no you[r candidate] sucks" shit without just cursing.]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:53 PM on May 2, 2016 [18 favorites]


[Running out of ways to say cut it out for the nth time with the Clinton v Sanders "you[r candidate] sucks" "no you[r candidate] sucks" shit without just cursing.]

Too bad title badges aren't on here like on MeTa. Then you could brand the worst offenders with "Trump Supporter" or something.
posted by dw at 2:08 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Meanwhile, in the best timeline imaginable:

During Friday's White House press briefing Press Secretary Josh Ernest was replaced with C.J. Cregg.

“Josh is out today. He has a... I believe it’s a root canal... Carol? Let’s be honest, I’m better at this than he is, anyway.”
posted by zarq at 2:41 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


You could check out the forums over at Rapture Ready are filled with all sorts of people believing stuff truly turned up to 11.

Woahhh, from "Rapture Ready's Doctrinal Statement and Core Values" -

We believe [...] that mankind is hopelessly lost due to sin and, destined for destruction, can only be saved by the completed work of the Lord on the cross through the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit. No amount of human effort or good work will suffice in lieu of this and none is required or necessary to supplement it.

Holy fuck! I can't believe they just come right out and SAY "it is not necessary to do good works for any reason whatsoever"!
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:28 PM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


They think it's not necessary for salvation, but if you asked them they'd probably say that the believe the cause and effect do go the other way around. Ie, you don't need to do good works to be saved, but if you're saved then you'll probably be inspired by God to do good works.

(If you're interested in this stuff you should definitely read Slactivist and maybe No Longer Quivering, which has an enlightening "Quoting Quiverfull" feature).
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:31 PM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


showbiz_liz, that's your basic "salvation by works" vs. "salvation by grace" theological divide in Christianity. The salvation by grace belief is more common. </derail>
posted by chrchr at 3:35 PM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


showbiz_liz: Holy fuck! I can't believe they just come right out and SAY "it is not necessary to do good works for any reason whatsoever"!

That's a core tenet of the Reformation.

You don't even wanna know about continuing to sin, that grace may abound, which is a knot that Paul tied himself into as soon as he proposed that salvation was by faith alone, not by works. /derail
posted by clawsoon at 3:42 PM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]




Holy fuck! I can't believe they just come right out and SAY "it is not necessary to do good works for any reason whatsoever"!

As someone who grew up Seventh-Day Adventist (which shares some of this theological DNA) - that doesn't necessarily follow. "You can't save the world" and "you can't save the guy in the river over there from drowning" aren't coterminus.

To use a secular equivalent, an old-school Kautskyist Marxist might well say that the overthrow of capitalism will be the inevitable consequence of historical forces that can't be hurried along by your personal efforts, but you're still totally encouraged to advocate for workers' rights, operate soup kitchens for the poor, or whatever you can do to alleviate present troubles.
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:17 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]




homunculus: "Does Donald Trump Actually Understand the Forces That Have Powered His Rise? Here's the scene in Indiana these days."

I'd like to point out that most of us in Indiana are not slack-jawed yokels chanting Trump slogans, though goodness knows we have more than our fair share.
posted by double block and bleed at 5:45 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Although I like to think that Trump's overwhelming success in New York was due to "slack-jawed yokels", but here in California, our yokels have yet to be heard from...
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:48 PM on May 2, 2016


I could be wrong, but I think what Eyebrows is commenting on is that in many of the more extreme fundamentalist churches there is a suspicion good works bordering on (or sometimes going right into) hostility. Since salvation is based on faith alone, to the more extreme mind the conclusion is then that anyone trying to do good is attempting to supplant grace with works so that the optimum behavior for Christians becomes doing nothing because to do anything is to risk falling into the apostasy of believing that works are necessary.

Fred Clark talks about a similar hostility towards peacemakers. The pseudo-logic is about the same.

There's a difference between the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and the sort of suspicion and/or hostility towards those who do good that we see on sites like Rapture Ready. Their statement of faith sounds like it urges the faithful to sit about doing nothing because it does. Action, other than the mandated action of spreading the gospel, is a sign of insufficient faith.
posted by sotonohito at 6:35 PM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Jesus wept.
posted by dersins at 6:38 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sounds like Prosperity Theology. But wouldn't the followers of that be committed to Trump?
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:49 PM on May 2, 2016


OnceUponATime I'd add Libby Ann's Love, Joy, Feminism to the list too. She and Fred Clark (Slacktivist) are my main windows into analysis of fundamentalism. I live around fundamentalists of all sorts, but those two help me make sense of and have some small degree of understanding that I'd otherwise lack.
posted by sotonohito at 7:03 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


OnceUponATime I'd add Libby Ann's Love, Joy, Feminism to the list too. She and Fred Clark (Slacktivist) are my main windows into analysis of fundamentalism.

I just wanted to do more than favorite your and OnceUponATime's suggestions - I've found these blogs absolutely invaluable reading, can't recommend them enough.
posted by mordax at 7:15 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Not to make this too much about theology, but if you believe it's all about faith alone, where does the political angle come in? What's the point in gaining political power for Dominionists if their works don't matter? If you're getting into the good place on the basis of your faith, what does it matter how many gay people you try to convert or how many marriages you disapprove of you stop? Why does it matter that you ran for President and tried to put other like-minded leaders in power to bring us closer to a theocracy?
posted by zachlipton at 7:30 PM on May 2, 2016




You're kind-of being too literal about sola fide. You can't be SAVED by works; that doesn't say that works don't MATTER. The verse that typically goes with it for mainline Protestants is about "by their fruits you will know them" -- that someone who's been saved will automatically just do a lot of good works. (But you can't do good works to bargain God into saving you, as Protestants generally alleged Catholics do -- or certainly did, at the time of the Reformation with the indulgence-selling.)

You do meet the rare sola fide type who wanders around drunk driving and saying "But I'm already saved! It doesn't matter what I do!" But they are, in fact, pretty rare, and pretty outside the mainstream understanding of sola fide.

Possibly the more important part here is that you'd be hard pressed to find a Dominionist who's actually READ Luther or Calvin on sola fide, and most of them are actually what theologians sometimes jokingly call sola biblio (Bible alone). It's not a coherent theology that holds up to deep scrutiny or even to a relatively cursory Biblical interrogation (like, as noted, they want to create a Christian theocracy that "restores" the Christian theocracy in the Old Testament -- you know, THE JEWISH ONE. Or, the Jewish SEVERAL, since they pick and choose from a bunch of different ruling regimes.). Luther and Calvin have lots and lots and LOTS to say about how sola fide actually looks when you live it in the world and have to make moral decisions about things without salvation by works; Dominionists don't because it's not a coherent theology where anybody has wrestled with these issues. Many strains of American fundamentalism in general are better understood as a folk religious practice that's functioning on superstition, ritual, and idiosyncratic, untaught interpretations of foundational texts. There's nothing wrong with folk religion, but it typically doesn't stand up to any kind of examination or interrogation. Like, why do Catholics bury St. Joseph upsidedown in their yards to sell their houses? What is the logic? THERE IS NO LOGIC, that's pure folk religion, there is no coherent theological underpinning. St. Joseph was extra holy! He's the patron saint of houses because he was a carpenter! Hey, stick him upsidedown in the yard and maybe he'll get pissed and tell God to sell your house so you'll dig him out! What?

American fundamentalism typically grows out of Calvinist movements that took theology SUPER SERIOUSLY and spent all kinds of time at three-hour sermons where scholarly little nerds broke down the deets of Reformation theology; they are extremely austere and spend a ton of time excising anything that's even a LITTLE bit superstitious or distracting from the scholarly, intellectual understanding of Christianity. (Like, down to removing music and art from churches.) So these offshoot fundamentalisms are typically birthed in the Great Awakenings where all the Calvinists go nuts for a charismatic, hyper-emotional version of Christianity that doesn't make you work so hard at the intellectual pats. Folk religion ALWAYS breaks out in every faith; most religions kind of let it burble along being tolerated but not condoned as long as it stays kinda unofficial and inoffensive, and it remains more or less tethered to the "official" theology and can be squished when it gets too nutty (and wants to, like, burn witches, for example). Calvinist groups like the Puritans tolerated that NOT ONE BIT and so folk religions bust out into entirely separate denominations untethered from anything.

So when you ask "How can Dominionists believe X but do Y?" you're actually asking "Why do Catholics bury St. Joseph upsidedown in the yard?" There's not going to be an answer that makes good logical sense regardless of your frame of reference. Which is okay when you're engaging in a harmless folk practice! But a little problematic when you're claiming a comprehensive theology.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:57 PM on May 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


Not to make this too much about theology, but if you believe it's all about faith alone, where does the political angle come in? What's the point in gaining political power for Dominionists if their works don't matter? If you're getting into the good place on the basis of your faith, what does it matter how many gay people you try to convert or how many marriages you disapprove of you stop? Why does it matter that you ran for President and tried to put other like-minded leaders in power to bring us closer to a theocracy?

Because they love you so much they want to save you from sin and hell.
posted by Talez at 8:43 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Because many people justify their hatred of the Other by cloaking it in religious garb.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:52 PM on May 2, 2016


"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is based upon two logical fallacies... (1) The Sinner and The Sin are two separate entities, and (2) Free Will, if not real, is mostly irrelevant. Just two MORE logical fallacies that make Pious Hate possible.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:55 PM on May 2, 2016


, to the extent anyone wants to say that these folks can't really be serious, it won't happen, that's just what people said about the loony reactionary sect of Muslim believers who are ISIS.

But a lot of people don't make that connection, because they don't really believe that the Daesh folk are all that different from regular Muslims. That said, the similarities between Dominionist thought as described by Eyebrows McGee and the lunacy of Taliban type thought that I'm more familiar with are pretty startling to me. From the roots in folk theology and lack of logical coherence to the differences between insider and outsider messaging to the utterly regressive aspirations for the framework of government.
posted by bardophile at 9:06 PM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


You're kind-of being too literal about sola fide. You can't be SAVED by works; that doesn't say that works don't MATTER. The verse that typically goes with it for mainline Protestants is about "by their fruits you will know them" -- that someone who's been saved will automatically just do a lot of good works.

Years ago I knew a woman at church who had struggled with mental illness for years and who used that experience as a direct analogy: her illness kept her from doing normal everyday things like handling chores, cultivating relationships, holding down a regular job. If she gritted her teeth and concentrated all her will she could do those things for a brief period, but that wasn't a sign she was well. She needed the drugs and therapy to be well, and one of the signs of being well was that she was able to do all those everyday things over extended periods, and just as importantly, see them as something she enjoyed achieving rather than gauntlets to be run.

In the same way, sola fide (she never used that term, but it seems to be a similar idea) means you can grit your teeth and force yourself to do good works, but that doesn't mean you're saved. That requires outside intervention (Christ's grace - she really, really liked the God-As-Doctor analogy), and one of the signs that you had received that intervention, that you were saved was that you would be more easily able to perform good works, that you would in fact want to do good works and experience them as less of a burden and more of a joy.

By the way, I know it's a bit of a derail but I'm tremendously enjoying the extended, in-depth comments about Dominionism in particular and theology in general here. Learning a lot.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:02 PM on May 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


It deserves its own post for sure.
posted by futz at 10:16 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm mostly surprised that eight years after GWB left office, Dominionism has found a way back into the White House. And here I thought the Religious Right has been in retreat as much as the neocons have.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:47 AM on May 3, 2016


I'd like to see a post of all of the resources Eyebrows has, she's got some amazing stuff here that shouldn't be buried at the bottom of a politics thread.
posted by sotonohito at 4:16 AM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


"Love the sinner, hate the sin"

It also appears nowhere in the Bible, but try telling fundamentalists that! They hate actually reading the Bible, so they really really dislike being corrected about its contents when they make things up.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 6:07 AM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


For those interested in reading more about dominionism, two older resources: Frederick Clarkson's work (one of a larger list of writings; Frederick Clarkson is not Fred Clark; recently, "Cruzing to Dominion"), and this list of posts by dogemperor.
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:29 AM on May 3, 2016


Fred Clark talks about a similar hostility towards peacemakers. The pseudo-logic is about the same.

George Carlin has some interesting thoughts about that same topic.
posted by Talez at 6:47 AM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]




Oh god, I swear I'm going to name my new ulcers "Indiana" when they appear. I can't believe I am putting my faith in evangelicals to save the country. Off to making more phone calls.
posted by corb at 8:58 AM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Looking forward to reading all of the horribly contorted explanations that conservative pundits are going to put out in defense of their support of Trump.
posted by octothorpe at 10:04 AM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


"He's not Hillary." That's pretty much the sum total of the explanations.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:10 AM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]




"Democracies end when they are too democratic."

- Andrew "Skull Measurements" Sullivan
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:17 AM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'd make a joke about evangelicals and saving if I could find any humor in them or Trump.
posted by phearlez at 10:21 AM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I sometimes have this waking fantasy of someone sitting Trump down and forcing him to read r/The_Donald for several hours, comments and all, and whatever small shred of conscience he has make him reflect on his words and actions.

The I laugh bitterly and cry a little as I imagine him calling Hillary Clinton a cuck.
posted by charred husk at 11:02 AM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Indiana Student Pulls "Too Slow" Handshake on Ted Cruz

sometimes i love this election cycle more than words
posted by burgerrr at 11:05 AM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad for Ted Cruz today, and I didn't realize I possibly had that in me.
posted by zachlipton at 11:08 AM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Don't worry, he'll fix that soon.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:22 AM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad for Ted Cruz today, and I didn't realize I possibly had that in me.

It began for me awhile back when one of my facebook friends started daily posting a particularly unflattering close-up photo of Cruz with no caption or any kind of context other than the implication "LOL look at how ugly this dude is!"

Then the whole stupid Zodiac Killer meme.

It's hard to chastise Trump and his ilk for their horrible, immature rhetoric when we engage in the same kind of puerility for shits and giggles and re-tweets.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:29 AM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Looking forward to reading all of the horribly contorted explanations that conservative pundits are going to put out in defense of their support of Trump.

I have a feeling it's going to be like that joke that consists of a series of Paris newspaper headlines about Napoleon, that start with "The pretender, that monsterous butcher, has escaped his imprisonment!" and ends with "His Excellency, Emperor Napoleon, is expected to arrive in Paris tomorrow."
posted by happyroach at 11:48 AM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's hard to chastise Trump and his ilk for their horrible, immature rhetoric when we engage in the same kind of puerility for shits and giggles and re-tweets.

The Zodiac Killer meme was funny for its absurdity at least (like: dude wasn't even born then). I really didn't like the "Cruz has a punchable face" thing though --- especially when that one article started spreading about how it was totally backed up by "science."

Three toddlers in a trenchcoat though? Total gold.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


I sometimes have this waking fantasy of someone sitting Trump down and forcing him to read /r/The_Donald for several hours, comments and all, and whatever small shred of conscience he has make him reflect on his words and actions.

Isn't that a fan subreddit? I suspect that would delight him rather than upset him. ("Was reading 'The Donald' on Reddit yesterday, great people, great supporters, top notch. Believe me. Greatest in the world. They're gonna help me build this great wall, believe me!")
posted by theorique at 12:19 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Three toddlers in a trenchcoat though? Total gold.

Oh, absolutely! I'm not dead inside.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:25 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Argentine sports channel TyC Sports has put together a pretty sweet Trump commercial for the Copa América football championship.
posted by figurant at 12:45 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I can never feel bad for Ted Cruz. If anything, he's not getting ridiculed enough. The ultra right wing Dominionist ideology he espouses, whether sincerely or as a transparent bid for power, should be relentlessly mocked, even if the mockery comes in immature forms like "punchable face".

If you're still feeling sorry for him, find that video of Cruz's pastor, Kevin Swanson, loudly proclaiming the immorality of allowing gay people to live. And then realize Cruz happily supported the guy until the media called him out. And then it was just a "mistake."
posted by honestcoyote at 12:45 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


And now Trump is associating Cruz's father with the JFK assassination.

... how is this EVEN A THING.
posted by suelac at 12:51 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


from that JFK article: hmm I disagree that "Journalists criticize Donald Trump every day."
posted by zutalors! at 12:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh believe me, it's a very limited form of feeling sorry for him, and it doesn't take a whole lot to snap me back to my senses. He's dangerous and would do an awful lot to hurt people. I just wish he could be universally mocked for what he proposes to do rather than his face or National Enquirer-level nonsense.
posted by zachlipton at 12:53 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Seen on Facebook:

Q: What is an anagram of "TED CRUZ CARLY FIORINA"?

A: "CLARIFY ZODIAC RETURN"

I'm not saying this means anything in particular - I'm just saying.
posted by theorique at 1:03 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


I am trying to imagine how I would have felt a year ago if I had been told the following were future news events: "Liberals rally in defense of Megyn Kelly." "Presidential candidate reassures voters about his penis size." "Republican frontrunner Donald Trump looks likely to clinch the nomination."
posted by kyrademon at 1:06 PM on May 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


Republican frontrunner Donald Trump looks likely to clinch the nomination.

Makes you wonder when the timeline diverged into absolute silliness. Did it start when Arnold became governor? Or earlier when another actor, whose most memorable film involved a chimpanzee, won the same governor's seat and later the presidency?
posted by honestcoyote at 1:33 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Be fair - Reagan was also in Knute Rockne, All American.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:44 PM on May 3, 2016


Makes you wonder when the timeline diverged into absolute silliness. Did it start when Arnold became governor?

Possibly here?
posted by dersins at 1:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was thinking more when Reagan became governor. I mean seriously, a B movie actor as the governor of an important state? What kind of hack would write that sort of drivel and expect to be taken seriously?
posted by sotonohito at 1:53 PM on May 3, 2016


It's so weird this year saw the success of both Hamilton and Trump. How can one country in one year be the home of both.
posted by angrycat at 2:19 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I voted this morning. It took about half an hour. The polling place was packed, but things went smoothly. There was an old man loudly grousing about having to wait. I was completely alone with the poll workers when I voted for mayor last year. I may have been the only democrat there. The booth, as always, was missing its pen. That's OK. I always bring my own.
posted by double block and bleed at 2:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's so weird this year saw the success of both Hamilton and Trump
aren't they quite similar? is "politainment" a word?
posted by andrewcooke at 2:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


In conclusion, America is a land of contrast.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's so weird this year saw the success of both Hamilton and Trump. How can one country in one year be the home of both.

Yin and yang. The US will be majority minority in 35 years. Some people are readjusting to the idea of routine POC (presidents of color), women even. Others are freaking out and starting to panic.
posted by msalt at 3:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton's campaign has decided not to spend a single additional dollar on the primary and to use all their resources going forward for the general, so that's where they see the race.
posted by Justinian at 3:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Indiana is already reporting results? Wow, polls close early there. Guess everyone needs to vote before the early bird specials are gone.
posted by dw at 3:18 PM on May 3, 2016


Dear Politico - as much as you are useful, sometimes your clickbait story titles are so very misleading as to really, seriously, annoy.
posted by Wordshore at 3:23 PM on May 3, 2016


Indiana is already reporting results? Wow, polls close early there. Guess everyone needs to vote before the early bird specials are gone.

Only criminals, black people and Democrats need to vote after 6pm.
posted by Talez at 3:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wow, polls close early there.

Polls close at 6pm. Most of the state is on Eastern Time, but a few counties near Gary and Evansville are on Central Time, so polls close there an hour later.
posted by peeedro at 3:37 PM on May 3, 2016


And now Trump is associating Cruz's father with the JFK assassination.

... how is this EVEN A THING.


Definitely saw some fuzzy images from some kind of Zapruder film knockoff with Rafael Cruz supposedly circled on it headling a tabloid in the grocery store checkout line several days before Trump started echoing this, so guess we know what his favorite newspapers are.
posted by mostly vowels at 3:38 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is super unlikely to be true, but is a perfect conspiracy theory, for some of the reasons outlined here - Cruz could have been in that place (but probably wasn't) and sort of fits the physical description of the person in the photo, and no one including the Warren Commission was able to figure out who the guy was (so we're not likely to be able to find the guy now), but Cruz would have been diametrically opposed to the message on the fliers...unless you think his son (Lyin' Cruz) was lying about his father's beliefs at that time...

Plus, I mean, it explains how his son became the Zodiac Killer...the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
posted by sallybrown at 3:46 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Looking at the results in Indiana, I am both regretting giving up heavy drinking, and praying for a localized meteorite. Also feeling guilt for like every single second I did anything but campaign.

The only hope now may be the Rules Committee. I don't care if it breaks the party - a Trump nominee backed by the GOP is worse. He is basically literally Hitler. What the fuck is wrong with the world?
posted by corb at 3:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


guess we know what his favorite newspapers are

The Enquirer endorsed him and published fabricated smear stories about Cruz even before this ridiculous Oswald thing. Something tells me it's less that Trump saw this story in a supermarket checkout line and decided to run with it, and more that his people wanted it in the paper.

Yes, that's my conspiracy theory, and I'm sticking with it.
posted by saturday_morning at 3:53 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well, he's Oligarch Hitler.
posted by dersins at 3:53 PM on May 3, 2016


It will get worse (i.e. people you thought had spines announcing they support Trump) before it gets better (i.e. Hillary crushing Trump like a bug).

It disgusts me too. I feel you.
posted by sallybrown at 3:53 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


corb, I've definitely been appreciating your updates from the other side of the aisle.
posted by Salieri at 3:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


4 minutes till all the polls close in Indiana. With nearly 5% reporting on both sides, Hillary leads Bernie 56-44, while Donald leads Ted 54-33.
posted by Wordshore at 3:56 PM on May 3, 2016




I'm fucking terrified. Bet fair has him at a 25% chance of winning the general. That's 24 percentile points too many. And unfortunately, if Trump has close to 1237, the Cruz slates may fall apart, which may mean an end to the possible Rules Committee block.
posted by corb at 3:57 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC says Trump wins Indiana.
posted by cashman at 4:01 PM on May 3, 2016


Nets are starting to call it. Trump takes Indiana.
posted by saturday_morning at 4:02 PM on May 3, 2016


Fox, CNN and AP all call Trump for Indiana within a minute of the last polling stations closing.
posted by Wordshore at 4:04 PM on May 3, 2016




I thought that was going to be the "this is fine" dog.
posted by cashman at 4:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


a Trump nominee backed by the GOP is worse. He is basically literally Hitler. What the fuck is wrong with the world?

Basically, with the advent of the Southern Strategy the GOP decided to cast its lot with the dogs and now, all these years later, the fleas are finally coming home to roost. (I like mixed metaphors and I cannot lie!)
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well, when the USA started down the "Let's elect the star of Bedtime for Bonzo the Governor of California" timeline, you could tell they were doing it for the ratings, but I thought it was going to stay a light comedy.

Then it swerved into sex scandal for the ratings, and tragedy, but I certainly didn't expect it to take quite this dark a turn.
posted by RedOrGreen at 4:12 PM on May 3, 2016


Requiesce in pace, my beloved republic. Salve munde, Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
posted by stolyarova at 4:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


CNN exit poll shows Bernie winning 58-42, but no other poll is even close to that.

For the most part the polls have been consistent this year, but the howlers seem louder than ever.
posted by dw at 4:24 PM on May 3, 2016


I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Bernie won Indiana, tbh, although 58-42 seems like a lot.

Anyway, this is probably a good time to contact your state Democratic party and ask them to put you on their list of potential volunteers. I am not taking a thing for granted. President Trump is too terrifying a prospect to contemplate.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Would it be weird to (personally) vote for Gary Johnson, but phone bank for Hillary? I want to vote my conscience, but I also want to take up arms in the fight against Trump.
posted by stolyarova at 4:29 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


That would not be weird.

And yeah, it's going to be interesting to see who in the GOP has a moral compass and who's a spineless power hungry coward (*coughChrisChristiecough*). Today I was like, "What the hell, Jon Huntsman, I thought you were cool!"
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:32 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


I mean, I'd find it a little weird. Not voting your conscience or phone banking for Clinton but doing both at the same time? Yeah it would seem weird. Especially if you live in a swing state like Nevada.
posted by Justinian at 4:33 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


My state is safely democratic, so I'm both safe from having to vote Clinton to stop Trump, and also fucked as far as volunteering goes. "Hi, I've been moderately high profile locally with the Cruz campaign, please give me your phone rosters."
posted by corb at 4:35 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


"I do hate your candidate, but since she is not literally evil, I'd like to use my skills to help."
posted by corb at 4:35 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Like... phone banking for one Democrat and voting for another wouldn't be that weird, but Johnson and Clinton (or Sanders or any other Democrat) are so diametrically opposed it would be a bit strange. Johnson is a states-rights pro-gun 2nd amendment absolutist for example.
posted by Justinian at 4:36 PM on May 3, 2016


Clinton's campaign has decided not to spend a single additional dollar on the primary and to use all their resources going forward for the general, so that's where they see the race.

Yeah, no TV ads at all. Sounds like they're prepping for a loss, per Maggie Haberman at the NYT. And now we reach the downside of proportional races -- she just needs to coast, so it'll be booooring rest of the way.
posted by dw at 4:38 PM on May 3, 2016


Something tells me it's less that Trump saw this story in a supermarket checkout line and decided to run with it, and more that his people wanted it in the paper.

You're probably not too far off. That article details some of the ties and history between Trump and the Enquirer going back years.
posted by zachlipton at 4:38 PM on May 3, 2016


"I do hate your candidate, but since she is not literally evil, I'd like to use my skills to help."

You already sound like a Democrat. Congratulations! Here's your rifle. Now stand in this circle over here....
posted by dw at 4:39 PM on May 3, 2016 [22 favorites]


I'm sure running a local Republicans Against Trump group and putting out press releases refuting his stupidest statements and opposing him generally would actually get you invited to TONS of fun Democrat parties!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:40 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think the one thing that helps in the general with Hillary is she's just going to cackle when Trump starts throwing that crap at her.

The one thing that hurts is she'll cackle.
posted by dw at 4:40 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, no TV ads at all. Sounds like they're prepping for a loss, per Maggie Haberman at the NYT.

No ads or money spent against Sanders in any forthcoming primary, not Indiana. So they're prepping for a win not a loss. They are saving resources for fighting Trump.
posted by Justinian at 4:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'll start prepping my "I like freedom and guns, but really I just want the world not to burn" speeches just in case.

I, uh, never thought I'd say these words, but it looks like America's last hope is California?
posted by corb at 4:43 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah, there's no reason for Clinton to burn any more money on the primary that I can see. She only has to win like 35% of remaining delegates.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:44 PM on May 3, 2016


Yeeeeah.... the Republicans in California are rabid. Don't look to them for rationality.
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not sure Hillary keeping her powder dry makes a lot of sense. She needs heat and light to keep the money moving. This isn't like the NFL where you rest players before the playoffs.
posted by dw at 4:48 PM on May 3, 2016


i DID see a lot of ted cruz billboards along the 5 when i was driving to and from LA this past weekend, but who knows...
posted by burgerrr at 4:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeeeeah.... the Republicans in California are rabid. Don't look to them for rationality.

WELCOME TO JEFFERSON. FUTURE 51ST STATE AND TWO EXTRA RED SENATE SEATS.
posted by Talez at 4:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Democratic primary is razor-close right now, although I'm reading that the votes that are still yet to be reported probably favor Clinton. But, proportional delegate allocation means it doesn't matter much either way, so not as exciting as all that.

And ... "presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump". That is now a thing. A thing that is.

Welp, time to donate some money to the Clinton campaign, I think.
posted by kyrademon at 4:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


i DID see a lot of ted cruz billboards along the 5 when i was driving to and from LA this past weekend

They must have been wedged in between all the signs blaming Nancy Pelosi for the lack of rain.
posted by Justinian at 4:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


corb: "My state is safely democratic, so I'm both safe from having to vote Clinton to stop Trump, and also fucked as far as volunteering goes. "Hi, I've been moderately high profile locally with the Cruz campaign, please give me your phone rosters.""

Don't sell yourself short -- if Clinton is going to crush Trump, it's going to require significant crossover support from reasonable #NecerTrump conservatives like you. If you're sincere, you'd make an extremely persuasive advocate in terms of phonebanking and canvassing. And it's not like the party can administer a purity test to everyone who volunteers.

Meanwhile, at FiveThirtyEight, reality sinks in:
We probably won’t record one of our patented (okay, fine, patent pending) late-night podcasts to discuss Indiana tonight. But we do have a live show in Washington, D.C., tomorrow where we’ll be able to analyze the results. All along, we thought that if Cruz won Indiana, we’d have delegate math to break down, and if Trump won we’d take a step back, treat him like the presumptive nominee, and start to grapple with…. what that means.

So, I’m curious: What big-think Donald Trump questions do you have tonight? For us, for yourself, for our country? What’s your working theory about Trump’s rise? What does it say about the state of our politics? This is a moment, people. Help us get our heads around it.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:51 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Oh man, we're fucked. Campaign staff are starting to give speeches about how "We can still win...but the REAL victory is the conservatism that's been in your heart all along!"
posted by corb at 4:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


i DID see a lot of ted cruz billboards along the 5 when i was driving to and from LA this past weekend, but who knows...

thanks for the warning, if I was driving down the 5 at night and I saw Cruz's billboard-sized head looming in my headlights I'd probably drive off the road
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


The real victory is friendship, corb.
posted by Justinian at 4:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'm not sure Hillary keeping her powder dry makes a lot of sense. She needs heat and light to keep the money moving.

I don't think it means she won't keep spending money the whole time, just that the message will be a general election one (including hits at Trump).
posted by thefoxgod at 4:55 PM on May 3, 2016


But, proportional delegate allocation means it doesn't matter much either way

Well, it matters inasmuch as many people don't realize the Democrats don't have winner-take-all primaries, so plenty of Sanders supporters get their hopes up every time they see him win a state by a 5-10 point margin, not realizing the miniscule effect it has on the actual delegate math.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:58 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


The real victory is friendship, corb.

You bite your tongue. Everyone is perfectly nice and sweet and I do not want to be invited to their church groups and never mention 75% of my views for the next five years. I am hoping if we lose that everyone is permanently embittered and never wants to talk to each other again.
posted by corb at 5:01 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


corb: "Oh man, we're fucked. Campaign staff are starting to give speeches about how "We can still win...but the REAL victory is the conservatism that's been in your heart all along!""

"Gentlemen, you've both worked very hard, and in a way you're both winners. ...But in another, more accurate way, Barney is the winner."
posted by Chrysostom at 5:01 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm not sure Hillary keeping her powder dry makes a lot of sense. She needs heat and light to keep the money moving. This isn't like the NFL where you rest players before the playoffs.
On the other hand, if she's looking to the national, I'm not convinced that the upcoming states are the places where she wants to invest her money. California, for instance, isn't going to go for Trump. I think New Jersey could be in contention, but other than that, they all look like safe states either for the Dems or the Republicans. She needs to start organizing her ground game in Michigan, Ohio, etc.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Rhaomi: "reasonable #NecerTrump conservatives"

That should be #NeverTrump, obvs. But ironically, Wiktionary sez "necer" can either be Latin for "may I be murdered/thwarted" or Latvian for the opposite of "hope," which seems darkly appropriate.
posted by Rhaomi at 5:05 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Well (for what it's worth), Sanders has seriously pulled ahead with 40% of the vote in.
posted by kyrademon at 5:09 PM on May 3, 2016


Sanders has seriously pulled ahead with 40% of the vote in.

But zero precincts reporting from the Gary area, which has a ton of Dem voters and heavily favors Clinton in terms of demographics. So, who knows.
posted by dersins at 5:16 PM on May 3, 2016


There's this neat tool at the NYT that uses different models and updates in real time what they think the outcome will be, factoring in stuff like "oh, this suburb of Indianapolis hasn't reported yet, and it's heavily African-American, so maybe pro Clinton".

Anyway, as of right now, it projects Sanders by 2 points.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:16 PM on May 3, 2016


I don't remember who asked me questions, but they seemed kind-spirited, and you're welcome to memail me. :)
posted by corb at 5:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


The real victory is friendship, corb.

"I'm not here to make friends! I'm here to find love rule!"

- The Apprentice: Federal Government
posted by sallybrown at 5:19 PM on May 3, 2016