Nothing is certain, except death and taxes and a US election campaign.
May 19, 2016 1:40 PM   Subscribe

Though we've come a long way since Bernie, Donald and Hillary formally launched their campaigns, there's still a while to go before polling stations open. Recently, Barack enjoyed a Nordic State Dinner , delivered a commencement speech of our time, and pushed through rules including extending overtime pay to more than four million Americans. On the campaign trail, Hillary takes Kentucky while Bernie takes Oregon. Meanwhile, Donald clarifies that there's no VP for Marco with him, but Marco wants people to leave him alone anyway, people make wild speculations about Bernie's possible VP pick, Ted pretends Donald does not exist, Reince pleads "come together", and in coal country Hillary mentions a Bill role as a potential running mate is a bit coy.

News of voting complications, laws, suppression and other shenanigans from California, Florida, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Delegate count trackers are available at 538, Associated Press, Bloomberg and The Economist. The odds on the overall winner, and the VP picks for the Democratic and Republican tickets, while Nate reckons 75% Hillary, 25% Donald. Donald may compose a tweet about this, though while Johnny Depp may win an Emmy playing Trump, who has his celebrity endorsers, another actor vows to stop the forces of Donald.

As well as the high profile trio, Jill Stein (twitter, website, ballotpedia) and Gary Johnson (twitter, website, ballotpedia) are also running, amongst others who are or might and details of their finances. Alternative candidates are available.

Election threadopedia: most recent eight
May 9th - What variety of cheese would Donald be? The 2016 US election continues.
May 4th - Trump will be the Republican standard-bearer.
April 26th - Crossing the Delaware: five primaries in the US election.
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.

Post title attribution.
posted by Wordshore (3019 comments total) 43 users marked this as a favorite
 
From all of us on mobile devices or just plain slow computers: Thanks!
posted by zombieflanders at 1:41 PM on May 19, 2016 [28 favorites]


I'm tired of this save how do I start a new game with different characters
posted by poffin boffin at 1:42 PM on May 19, 2016 [165 favorites]


I'm tired of this save how do I start a new game with different characters

It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a Trump.
posted by dw at 1:43 PM on May 19, 2016 [85 favorites]


Wordshore is gunning for the most commented upon user of all time title.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:49 PM on May 19, 2016 [15 favorites]


I'm tired of this save how do I start a new game with different characters

Ask the establishment Republicans, they seem to be trying.
posted by zabuni at 1:49 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's like EVE Online, I'm not a player in the game, but I enjoy reading about all the enormous battles.
posted by Kabanos at 1:49 PM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


and in coal country Hillary mentions a Bill role as a potential running mate is a bit coy.

Great post as always Wordshore. Having a wee bit of problem parsing the above - can an ex President run for VP?
posted by infini at 1:52 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


These threads drive me crazy and I don't know why I can't just look away, but I do know this:
Wordshore, you are a treasure. Thanks for putting so much work into these posts!
posted by TwoStride at 1:53 PM on May 19, 2016 [12 favorites]


No, Bill Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to be VP. So is Obama.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Just finished reading this FiveThirtyEight piece on Sanders voter sentiments. The graph showing a dramatic Clinton favorability crash in the last month is frightening. Hopefully this is just a stages-of-grief thing, but the Sanders campaign needs to stop illegitimizing the process ASAP or the rift will never heal.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [24 favorites]


Gotta parse it as:

(in coal country) (Hillary mentions a Bill role) [whilst] (a potential running mate, someone else, is a bit coy).
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:55 PM on May 19, 2016


I said this at the tail end of the last thread, but I would LOVE LOVE LOVE it if Clinton gave an epic speech on misogyny like Obama's 2008 speech on race. This election season is all about "telling it like it is" and "PC run amok" -- so let's use it to our advantage - you want me to tell it like it is? ok, let's talk about the patriarchy, let's talk about misogyny, let's talk about intersectionality.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:56 PM on May 19, 2016 [37 favorites]




I think it's high time for Sanders to act 'presidential' and rein in his rabids.
posted by Dashy at 1:59 PM on May 19, 2016 [29 favorites]


As I said in the tail end of the last thread when probably no-one was left reading it; I think the immediate aftermath of California will be a defining moment for the Sanders campaign. Clinton will obtain a straight majority of the pledged delegates on that day. Will Sanders give a speech recognizing she will be the nominee and pledging to stop Trump or will he give a speech where he defiantly pledges to fight on to the convention floor?

In the first case I think his campaign will be viewed as a valiant (and somewhat successful) attempt to shift the Democratic party leftward. In the second case he will be viewed as Nader 2.0 except worse.
posted by Justinian at 2:01 PM on May 19, 2016 [21 favorites]


I still worry about the general. I wasn't politically aware enough in 1980 to pay attention, but I'm getting strong 2000 vibes. We all thought Junior was a total blowhard with no chance of victory, and he got it close enough that the Republicans on the Supreme Court could steal it for him, and then he was genuinely elected in 2004.

I underestimated the willingness of racist Americans to vote for an idiot once. I fear 538 and the others predicting a fairly easy Clinton victory may be making the same mistake.

Rhaomi, I'm betting stages of grief. I've unsubbed from /r/sandersforpresident, but I was (am?) a Sanders supporter and so are a lot of my friends both IRL and online. Most have moved on and are already ready to support Clinton against Trump.

I think the rump of hardcore Bernie Bros may be larger than the (possibly mythic) rump of PUMA's, but ultimately I think they'll be about as significant in the general as the PUMA's were. Which is to say, not at all.
posted by sotonohito at 2:02 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


Nader 2.0

The dark side of y2k nostalgia
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:03 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


No, Bill Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to be VP. So is Obama.

This is actually an unsettled Constitutional question. Bill Clinton as VP would raise additional issues in the electoral college because he and Hillary Clinton reside in the same state.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:04 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


No, Bill Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to be VP. So is Obama.

Prrrobably. The 22nd Amendment says the VP cannot be "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President". But the 22nd Amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". There are some who believe that, technically speaking, Clinton and Obama and Bush are not constitutionally ineligible to the office, merely constitutionally ineligible to be elected.
posted by Etrigan at 2:05 PM on May 19, 2016 [21 favorites]


As well as the high profile trio, Jill Stein (twitter, website, ballotpedia) and Gary Johnson (twitter, website, ballotpedia) are also running

I mentioned before that on the California Primary ballot, there were 5 other candidates for the Democratic party. Well, neither Jill Stein for the Greens nor Gary Johnson for the Libertarians are running unopposed: Green, Libertarian. Also interesting: some of the folks Trump defeated are still on the Republican ballot here, including Ben Carson.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:06 PM on May 19, 2016


I really doubt Clinton will provoke a Constitutional crisis by choosing either Obama or her husband as her VP. Among other things it'd cost her votes, and she's far too adept a politician to do that. My money is still on Clinton picking a white, straight, older, Southern guy. Very safe, very establishment, to reassure the misogynist and racist wing of the Party that it's ok.

Justinian, I think he could fulfill his pledge to stay in until all votes are cast and keep in up to the convention and still be ok. At least in theory. In practice it'd take a lot more nuance and recognition of reality than he seems to have lately.
posted by sotonohito at 2:07 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


No, Bill Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to be VP. So is Obama.

Is Al Gore eligible?
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:08 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


Chrysostom: Wordshore is gunning for the most commented upon user of all time title.

I don't see anything on the infodumster to calculate that natively, but he might be getting close through an aggregate count of Which posts in MetaFilter have the most comments? He'd do better if he wasn't so good about getting new election posts up so frequently.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:10 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]




I'm tired of this save how do I start a new game with different characters

but all that time spent grinding will feel wasted!
posted by numaner at 2:11 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm tired of this save how do I start a new game with different characters

Have you tried turning it off and on again?
posted by stolyarova at 2:12 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Politico asks: Is Sanders 2016 becoming Nader 2000?

The Week's Ryan Cooper responds: how about try to win the election instead of preemptively figuring out who to blame for losing
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:13 PM on May 19, 2016 [26 favorites]


Justinian, I think he could fulfill his pledge to stay in until all votes are cast and keep in up to the convention and still be ok. At least in theory. In practice it'd take a lot more nuance and recognition of reality than he seems to have lately.

Yeah I was trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to draw a distinction between still holding rallies and letting people vote and continuing the combative anti-Democratic-party tone of the last week or two. I don't think he should or will suspend his campaign completely, just that he needs to recognize the reality of the situation after California.
posted by Justinian at 2:13 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]




A genuine question to Bernie Sanders supporters who are mad at Clinton and the DNC for various reasons. What is it exactly that you would like Clinton to do in the coming week, weeks, months? It seems like the anger directed at Clinton is basically either "I don't like you and wish you were somebody else," or: "I wish you would drop out of the race." Well, she's not dropping out and she's not going to magically become someone else. What can she do to garner your vote, absent those two things? I think knowing exactly what you'd like Clinton to do will help me understand some of the frustration out there, because right now I don't understand it.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:16 PM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]


Donating a comma to the cause, I parsed it as

in coal country Hillary mentions a Bill role, as a potential running mate is a bit coy.
posted by Dashy at 2:16 PM on May 19, 2016


AHaWO: I'm interested in that as well. The key things that Sanders and Clinton have differences on are single-payer health care, minimum wage level, and wall street reform. I don't see how Clinton could make concessions on single-payer or the $15 minimum wage since she's already pretty far left on those, just not quite as far left as Sanders. So to me the most likely place she could move a little would be something to do with Wall Street and the banks. Perhaps combined with reforms to the superdelegate and caucus systems.

What that would look like I have no idea.
posted by Justinian at 2:20 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


In a FB conversation, I said that the rabies of revolution! currently infecting Sanders supporters, and indeed the idea of contesting a convention, owes its roots, at least in part, to Drumpf.

But Sonohito is right in pointing out that Sanders lacks the nuance, and the realism, to rein his people in.
posted by Dashy at 2:22 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Donating a comma to the cause, I parsed it as

in coal country Hillary mentions a Bill role, as a potential running mate is a bit coy.


Yep, you're right; there should have been a comma there. My native dialect is Asum, we're are a bit odd with the use of commas and clauses at times, and old habits die hard; sorry about that.
posted by Wordshore at 2:23 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


A genuine question to Bernie Sanders supporters who are mad at Clinton and the DNC for various reasons.


I am absolutely going to vote for Hilary Clinton in November.

But I wish she hadn't voted for the Iraq War. In fact, I wish her foreign policy was very, very different. I wish she hadn't been so quick throughout her public career to throw LGBT people under the bus when things got tough. I wish she had been better to the women her husband was involved with and probably sexually harassed. I wish she would take stronger stands against Wall Street and the banks. I wish she wouldn't speak more with less wiggle room language on racial and social justice issues, including raising the minimum wage.

I am absolutely going to vote for Hilary Clinton in November.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:23 PM on May 19, 2016 [71 favorites]


I underestimated the willingness of racist Americans to vote for an idiot once. I fear 538 and the others predicting a fairly easy Clinton victory may be making the same mistake.

All we can say, at the moment, is that the polls don't look great for Trump. That doesn't mean an easy victory, but it does mean that the data we have suggest a victory.

I think that you are correct about the insidious force of racism in American politics, and that any Clinton victory is going to be much closer than anyone on Metafilter (I think universally, although maybe we have someone who supports Trump hiding somewhat. If so, please show yourself. Please...) would be comfortable with.

So, not time to relax and not time to panic. It is unsettling that the latest polls suggest Republicans forming up behind Trump while Democrats remain rather scattered and unsupportive of Clinton. I don't think Rasmussen's approach right now is necessarily very useful in telling us where we'll be in six months time, but I think it's revealing something specific about the state of the contest right now.
posted by howfar at 2:26 PM on May 19, 2016


MCMike, definitely not asking you to like her. At this point, however, opposing the Orange Death is a civic duty.
posted by stolyarova at 2:27 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]


All we can say, at the moment, is that the polls don't look great for Trump.

They didn't. The last week he has surged and is polling ahead of Clinton nationally and in some swing states in at least some polls.

We'll know more once the Democratic primary process is wrapped up. It's hard to poll candidates when one is the nominee and the other is still in a bitter primary.
posted by Justinian at 2:27 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


In other news, Trump has finally released his financials (NYT analysis). I believe he's trying to quiet the calls for his tax returns, but there's a lot less detail here than there (and a lot more room for his flexible relationship with the truth). Either way, he's not nearly worth the $10 billion he claims.
posted by stolyarova at 2:32 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm really interested who is chosen as VPs candidates. Let's be honest both Hilary and Trump are not spring chickens. We saw what happened to Reagan before his first term even ended.

I think the odds are good that a VP might have to step in before the term is up. Or at least be the candidate next term.
posted by KaizenSoze at 2:33 PM on May 19, 2016


What can she do to garner your vote, absent those two things? I think knowing exactly what you'd like Clinton to do will help me understand some of the frustration out there, because right now I don't understand it.

I'm in a deep blue state, so she doesn't really "need" to earn my vote, but nevertheless... I liked the direction her campaign was taking a few weeks ago, focusing on Trump, being unapologetically feminist ("deal me in" and issuing "woman cards" was brilliant). I want more of that. Bernie or Bust is a small segment of people, many of whom were probably always going to vote third party in a Clinton vs. Republican election. Just stop ramping up all of this "Clinton is being attacked, Trump will be president! It's all your fault!" nonsense. Stop telling me how an alleged Sanders supporter on Facebook or Reddit said something misogynistic. Yeah, some Sanders supporters say and do misogynistic things, so do some Clinton supporters. If you've been a woman online expressing your political opinion this year, you've probably been harassed irrespective of the person you support. We live in a patriarchy. Stop fighting Sanders (who you already beat) and continue fighting the patriarchy.

I don't think "Fwd: Fwd: OMG IT's aLL RigGed!" But our institutions in this country are corrupt. Our institutions are broken. Our institutions are sexist and racist. Watch any of the long segments on Last Week Tonight and tell me that shit isn't fucked up and bullshit -- including shit that Democrats do (or fail to do because they're too milquetoast to stand up for women and PoC and LGBT folks).

I want her to say something that makes men in the Democratic party establishment think that she went too far, or took womens rights too far. I want her to call out by name the Democrats in NC that voted for the transphobic bill and say that she'd support primary opponents in those districts. I want her to read aloud RBG's dissent in Gonzoles v. Carhart describing the horrors of a world without access to safe, legal abortion at any stage of pregnancy. I want her to be brave and be bold. For me. For my mother. For my daughter.

We may have to accept marginal gains in policy, but we don't have to accept marginal gains in discourse. Tell it like it is Hillary Clinton, please. We're all counting on you.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:38 PM on May 19, 2016 [89 favorites]


The last week he has surged and is polling ahead of Clinton nationally and in some swing states in at least some polls.

Hmm. Which polls and why is important there. If you read the rest of my comment, you'll note the specific reference to Rasmussen and the current significance of their polling method. But it's not just a matter of the electoral cycle, but also the polling cycle. Fox and Rasmussen have tended to produce more positive results for Trump this year, and they're currently working at a faster pace than other pollsters. Let's see what happens when the polling clarifies.

I suspect we're going to see a small Clinton advantage remaining, but I think what's important right now is what Rasmussen is revealing. There is limited enthusiasm for Clinton. Something has to be done about that. The election isn't tomorrow, and polls are only of limited value as predictors, but Clinton's weakness within her own party is an observable fact that they are revealing.
posted by howfar at 2:38 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


> I think the odds are good that a VP might have to step in before the term is up. Or at least be the candidate next term.

I bet that at some point Trump promises that he will never die.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:39 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]




In other news, Trump has finally released his financials (NYT analysis).

That's just the latest FEC filing all candidates are required to make. It doesn't count.
posted by zachlipton at 2:40 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm really interested who is chosen as VPs candidates. Let's be honest both Hilary and Trump are not spring chickens.

Can we maybe not with this? Yes, the VP is important for a number of reasons, one of them being the fact that they could need to serve as President. But the whole "they're old so they need a backup" thing is grating.
posted by zachlipton at 2:42 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


Stop fighting Sanders (who you already beat)

I actually quite agree with this; however it does raise the question as to whether Sanders has a responsibility to stop fighting Clinton, and whether he thinks he has been beaten.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:43 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


Obama tanked in the polls in 2008 after McCain nominated Palin (!!!), trailing by 10 points.

I think if we all pull together -- and by all I mean Clinton and most (I exclude the Bernie or Bust people) Sanders supporters, this season is going to be a bigger win than 08. But the downticket and looking hard at opportunities in red states with demographics that are going purple is the name of the game if we want to see real, meaningful and lasting policy change.

I just wanted to add that I love what Clinton said today about Trump, in case anyone didn't see it:

Hillary Clinton labeled her Republican rival Donald Trump "divisive and dangerous" and "unmoored" on Thursday, saying his recent behavior shows he's not qualified to be president.
The Democratic presidential front-runner unleashed her sharpest attacks yet on Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, in an exclusive interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo in Park Ridge, Illinois.
She pointed to Trump's attacks on British politicians, his willingness to speak with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, his call for the United States to back away from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and his assertion that more countries should have nuclear weapons, and said it "adds up to a very troubling picture."
"I know how hard this job is, and I know that we need steadiness as well as strength and smarts in it, and I have concluded he is not qualified to be president of the United States," Clinton said.

posted by bearwife at 2:43 PM on May 19, 2016 [30 favorites]


poffin boffin: "I'm tired of this save how do I start a new game with different characters"

This isn't a game. It's malware. Format your hard drive and reinstall.
posted by Splunge at 2:47 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


This isn't a game. It's malware. Format your hard drive and reinstall.

Re-installation of Election 2016 has been aborted. Would you like to install Election 2020? (Yes/No/Unplug/Pour Gasoline on Hard Drive and BURN BURN BURN!!)
posted by pyramid termite at 2:52 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


however it does raise the question as to whether Sanders has a responsibility to stop fighting Clinton

I keep seeing this come up. And very often it seems like a weird take on "make him admit he was wrong from the start."

Given that he has almost zero chance of getting the nomination, the calls for him to "just give up" seem more petty and questionable than anything Sanders may or may not actually be doing.
posted by Dark Messiah at 2:52 PM on May 19, 2016 [23 favorites]


They didn't. The last week he has surged and is polling ahead of Clinton nationally and in some swing states in at least some polls.

We'll know more once the Democratic primary process is wrapped up. It's hard to poll candidates when one is the nominee and the other is still in a bitter primary.


There's like six months of campaign left. The match-up polls between Trump and Clinton are going to move around a lot.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:53 PM on May 19, 2016


Those nervous about TRUMP EDGING AHEAD IN POLLS! need to look at electoral maps and take a Xanax. To defeat Hillary in November, Trump would need to flip not one but several swing states that all went for Obama in 2012 -- not a narrow victory but a sea change of dramatic proportions across Purple America. That's unlikely even with a Republican candidate that actual Republicans LIKE.

The 2016 end result is very likely to be what it's always been likely to be: a Democratic President, a closely divided Senate and a Republican House with a dingbat backbencher caucus driving its agenda.

But Sonohito is right in pointing out that Sanders lacks the nuance, and the realism, to rein his people in.

Lots of "his people" are reined in. I pulled the lever for Bernie, and I will pull it for Hillary in the fall because, well, DUH. But do not mistake waves of populist rage and disillusionment as an uniquely conservative phenomenon.

Large chunks of the electorate are lining up behind Bernie AND/OR behind Trump not because they've studied their politics and decided they're most representative of their beliefs, but because they're PISSED and gravitating to the loudest voice that's actively calling out blame. Bernie blames the corporations and the 1%. Trump blames, well, make a list but here's a hint for its contents: most of it isn't Caucasian. Bernouts need to realize that President Hillary is a lot more likely to remember that they exist and need help than President Trump would be -- and Candidate Hillary needs to find ways to voice that.
posted by delfin at 2:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [27 favorites]


Also I think "Great Hate and Sickness!" would make a good Trump pledge for the Trumplerjugend
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:55 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


A genuine question to Bernie Sanders supporters who are mad at Clinton and the DNC for various reasons. What is it exactly that you would like Clinton to do in the coming week, weeks, months?

If she would break off her family's marriage alliance with House Goldman Sachs, that would make me feel she might be serious about reining in Wall Street or reducing income inequality.

That being said, she already has my vote in that I prefer the slow road to hell over the fast one.
posted by Balna Watya at 2:56 PM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]


Given that he has almost zero chance of getting the nomination, the calls for him to "just give up" seem more petty and questionable than anything Sanders may or may not actually be doing.

Hmmm, I think we may be talking past each other. I'm a Clinton supporter but am cool with Sanders taking it to the convention. He has a great message to get out there! But I'm not cool with him continuing to fan the fires of unrest, and with him lying to his supporters about his chances. TPM said it better than I could.

And it's just another one of those weird sexist things I see -- Hillary has to play nice and can't say anything bad about Bernie, but it's okay for him to imply that it's all a conspiracy, the entire system is rigged against him and his supporters, and Clinton is part of the corrupt, rigged system. Of course his supporters are starting to abandon her in droves!

I just really wish they'd both set their sights on Trump.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:57 PM on May 19, 2016 [51 favorites]


he doesn't have to give up. he can fight his battle Howard Dean style
posted by angrycat at 2:59 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just really wish they'd both set their sights on Trump.

It's like that part where Daredevil and the Punisher are kicking the shit out of each other, and I'm just like, "Guys, Wilson Fisk is still out there."
posted by stolyarova at 3:02 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


As posted by showbiz_liz in an earlier thread, if you take 5% away from Ds in every state in 2012 and give it to the Rs, Ds still win 272 ECs to 266 (electoral map).
posted by chris24 at 3:04 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]


I had a cordial conversation with a couple of Bernie-or-Busters a couple weeks ago (involved as I am in local democratic politics). Now, the vast majority of local Bernie supporters I know are going to vote for Hillary in the general, whether happily ("I like them both, I just agree more with Bernie") or grudgingly ("Can't stand her but if she's the D nominee, that's who I'm voting for.").

So these were polite young men, college students at a local private college, white, cis, het, and rabid for Bernie, and never voting for Hillary. And it was a weird conversation. Their two major things were a) free college and b) the political system is corrupt and that people like them (i.e., not superrich) don't have adequate access to it. Both were business majors; one of them was majoring in finance and hoping to work on Wall Street. I asked about breaking up the big banks and he waved it away -- "I know he talks a lot about that but I'm not worried, he can't get that done, and anyway, there will still be big money in finance." They didn't care about infrastructure, minimum wage, trade, civil liberties, etc.; they were interested in political corruption, which they felt Bernie was the only candidate addressing, and the cost of college. I asked about K-12 education and one told me it wasn't as critical as free college because, "We already spend more per student in poor schools than rich schools, it's just not being used well." They weren't interested in health care access, or in women's issues. (I didn't super-grill them or challenge them a ton, because it was a cordial conversation and I was curious.)

As far as I could tell, they were straight-up "Main Street" Republicans, who thought people should work hard at the opportunities they already have and anyone can then succeed, who see the political system as corrupt and have one specific personal problem -- college debt -- that Bernie has addressed. They don't see general inequality as an issue, they're not very interested in his big banks rhetoric. They're not engaged in any left or liberal issues in general, other than college debt. They are SUPER turned off by the anti-intellectualism and xenophobia and racism of the institutional GOP right now and definitely won't vote for Trump, but in any other cycle they're clearly Romney voters. Maybe W voters. They won't vote for Hillary because they're not liberals. They're (very young, fairly naive) center-right types who happen to like Bernie and two of his issues a lot.

So while I'm sure there are many varieties of Bernie-or-Busters out there, I'm not sure how many of them are rejecting Hillary for being insufficiently liberal, and in their case there isn't ANYTHING Hillary could do to make herself acceptable to them; they want Bernie specifically for idiosyncratic reasons, and otherwise they'd prefer an old-fashioned, pre-Gingrich Republican. Anyway, I'm sure there are Bernie supporters too far left to vote for Hillary, but I don't know how big a group it is; because clearly there are also Bernie supporters who won't vote for Hillary because they're not liberals at all. So, yeah, I kind of feel like we need some after-the-election evidence, rather than feverish pre-convention speculation, about which Bernie supporters refused to support Hillary -- because I'm betting a significant number of them (maybe not a majority, but a significant number) are voters who wouldn't be in a liberal coalition in any year but this one, for this candidate, and they aren't transferable.

(Anyway, just to reemphasize, the vast, vast majority of local Bernie supporters I've chatted with are long-time liberals -- some new to political activism, but reliable liberals. These guys stood out because they were a) just about the only Bernie-or-Busters and b) SO WEIRD in their mix of political beliefs. I do know a couple other Bernie-or-Busters but they're like local gadfly semi-communists I've known for years, they flit in and out of voting for mainstream candidates based on highly idiosyncratic personal criteria, and sometimes just don't vote at all because that's how they're sticking it to the man that year.)

My impression of the local party politics, which is fairly quiet right now because it's a slow period, is that there's no big rift between the Hillary folks and the Bernie folks, and there's a continuation of a long-time push/pull between older, traditional Democratic factions (mostly union, here) who hold most of the local party power, and younger lefties who are more motivated by inequality, the environment, etc., who are trying to pull the local party further left. That's a well-established local dynamic, so it's not a new upsetting thing and there's an ongoing dialogue about those compromises; I don't think local Bernie people feel particularly unheard, nor that local Hillary people feel particularly affronted or attacked -- this is a continuation of an issue we've been dealing with for a decade and we're well-used to the conversation about "move left!" "okay, but practicality!" "okay, but idealism!" I mean there's a certain amount of elbowing and jostling, but I don't think anybody feels particularly offended or disenfranchised by any of it; "grumpy" or maybe "frustrated by a specific issue" is as far as I'd go.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:05 PM on May 19, 2016 [99 favorites]


I'm tired of this save how do I start a new game with different characters

It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a Trump.


IT'S DANGEROUS TO GO ALONE! TAKE THIS.
posted by Fizz at 3:06 PM on May 19, 2016 [10 favorites]


Guys, Wilson Fisk is still out there.

Trump/Fisk 2016
posted by Hoopo at 3:13 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


My mom is a Bernie or Bust, she'll be voting for Stein in the general. She's in MA, so it's not going to hurt Clinton. I don't think there's anything that Clinton could say or do to get her to support her. (When I said I had voted for Clinton in the primary, her reaction was "we're going to have a war, she's so hawkish.") Of course, my mom is too the left of everyone I know. I'm pretty sure that she's still hoping the revolution will come and sweep the proletariat into power.

Family tradition has it that she chewed out John Kerry for a hawkish vote in the senate in the late 80s when she ran into him at a event they were both at. She denies it to this day, I was too young to know, but it fits who she is.

So that's my view of the left side of Bernie or Bust.
posted by Hactar at 3:13 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


On re-reading Eyebrow's McGee's comment, with the exception of voting in ever election, no matter how small, the semi-communist label is not too far off the mark for my mom.
posted by Hactar at 3:16 PM on May 19, 2016


I was a Sanders supporter, and will definitely be voting for Hillary in November (insofar as much as my DC vote matters for anything).

Given that he has almost zero chance of getting the nomination, the calls for him to "just give up" seem more petty and questionable than anything Sanders may or may not actually be doing.

I also agree with this. A lot of the Clinton supporters in my social circle have been weirdly petty (and aggressive) about this, and the attitude really isn't helping Clinton's general appeal. We get it. You won.

Sanders is possibly being a sore loser, but Clinton absolutely needs to be seen as a gracious winner. We got a taste of that last month, but the Clinton campaign seems to have shifted back into a weird cycle of unnecessary negative campaigning.

I also don't understand it -- this seems like a legitimately bad strategy. Clinton almost definitely benefits from being mathematically guaranteed to win, whilst Sanders shifts the Overton window to the left, allowing Clinton to push her stances to the left while still appearing to be a moderate.

It also bothers me that Sanders is adopting some pretty questionable "sore loser" tactics instead of using his platform to push his agenda (and support downticket candidates that share his views). Many of his criticisms have been disingenuous, which is also bothersome, given that he's not exactly wrong about how badly the primaries are fucked up, or that the DNC seems to do an exceptionally poor job of selecting candidates that represent the electorate.
posted by schmod at 3:18 PM on May 19, 2016 [25 favorites]


Trump/Fisk 2016

Fisk would hate Trump for being a lowbrow vulgarian. Fisk started poor, became wealthy, and refined his tastes. He's also intensely private. Trump started rich, became richer, and never had or got any taste at all. He's also always adored the spotlight. While there are parallels, in many ways, apart from both being cartoon villains, Trump and Fisk are antitheses.
posted by stolyarova at 3:20 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


he doesn't have to give up. he can fight his battle Howard Dean style

Completely abandon his principles and become a lobbyist for Big Pharma?
posted by Justinian at 3:20 PM on May 19, 2016 [27 favorites]


I still worry about the general. I wasn't politically aware enough in 1980 to pay attention, but I'm getting strong 2000 vibes. We all thought Junior was a total blowhard with no chance of victory, and he got it close enough that the Republicans on the Supreme Court could steal it for him, and then he was genuinely elected in 2004.

I think pretty much everyone here is carrying the scars of the 2000 election. It's one of those moments in time where, if one had a time machine and the right plan, the temptation to go back and change history would be pretty irresistible.
posted by emjaybee at 3:21 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


I no longer support Bernie Sanders. He seems more concerned today with poisoning the well to win at all costs, not bringing about the changes this country needs; the changes he spent most of the election talking about. I contributed to his campaign. I told my friends and family how excited I was about him and his ideas. I don't see how anything he's saying or doing now moves our agenda forward.

We fought hard and we lost fair and square. I can deal with that. That's how democracy works. What I can't deal with is how the candidate I put my trust in has changed into someone I don't recognize and would never have supported if he had acted this way from the beginning. I'm very disappointed.

So let's get to work making sure Hillary Clinton gets elected as president of the United States. We only have six months and the consequences of failure are dire.
posted by double block and bleed at 3:23 PM on May 19, 2016 [62 favorites]


erm no i meant Dean's non-evil things. But I'm not a Dean expert, maybe he's Satan, who knows
posted by angrycat at 3:24 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


given that he's not exactly wrong about how badly the primaries are fucked up,

He's happy to criticize closed primaries as anti-democratic, but won't do the same for caucuses, which are even more so.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:25 PM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]


This isn't a game. It's malware. Format your hard drive and reinstall.

Re-installation of Election 2016 has been aborted. Would you like to install Election 2020? (Yes/No/Unplug/Pour Gasoline on Hard Drive and BURN BURN BURN!!)


DBAN 2016!
posted by Special Agent Dale Cooper at 3:25 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


I have a solid feeling that Clinton will struggle to beat Trump in November.

Ironically for all the talk about Trump destroying the Republican party, it's more accurate to say that he has realigned the the party's messaging with its voters.

The Clinton position (as always) reflects a careful compromise: carrots for moderate Republicans to peal them away from their party and a big stick for Democrats because they have no reasonable alternative.

That leaves her some distance from her base and requires anger at Trump and fear over wedge issues to energize her voters, which might work or it might not.
posted by ethansr at 3:26 PM on May 19, 2016 [19 favorites]


I don't think I buy that --- Clinton is solidly liberal and I think she's probably closer to the average Democratic voter than Sanders is (which is one reason why more people are voting for her...).

She is not aligned with the far left of the party, but I think she is well aligned with the majority of Democrats. She has more issues with independents which is what her campaign will have to focus on.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:29 PM on May 19, 2016 [15 favorites]


"Vote for Hillary because Trump is worse!" is not exactly a clarion call. OTOH, I don't live in a swing state, so my antipathy is equally matched by all candidates' apathy. (s/directly/equally/)
posted by spacewrench at 3:32 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump/Fisk 2016
Fisk would hate Trump


Okay, then, which comic book supervillain would be a good running mate for Drumphy?
Lex Luthor would have the same problems as Fisk.
Doctor Doom, Loki, Galactus, Magneto... all not U.S. born so ineligible.
Joker? Too similar to The Donald's style, and he doesn't like anybody upstaging him.
Also in the Batverse, Catwoman or Harley Quinn... both good for picking up superficial 'women votes', and 'total babes'... but are they canonically over 35?
Any others?
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:34 PM on May 19, 2016


It's not "Vote for Hillary because Trump is worse!" It's "Vote for Hillary because she most closely aligns with the majority of your positions!" And, yes, Trump is a disaster.
posted by Justinian at 3:34 PM on May 19, 2016 [24 favorites]


I hope there will be a groundswell of female support for Clinton, especially against such a misogynistic opponent as Trump - much the way as President Obama had a great groundswell of minority support in 2008.
posted by stolyarova at 3:34 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


Trump is a disaster.

Exactly as the man himself would put it. ;)

Kind of /s, but I'm working hard to clear my own language of Trumpese. The incidence of "tremendous", "terrible," "a mess" et al. has increased and while the man may take the White House, he'll never take my brain.
posted by stolyarova at 3:36 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's not "Vote for Hillary because Trump is worse!" It's "Vote for Hillary because she most closely aligns with the majority of your positions!"
___

MCMike, definitely not asking you to like her. At this point, however, opposing the Orange Death is a civic duty.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:37 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


...and true to form, he's making every effort to be the biggest disaster.
posted by schmod at 3:38 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


I actually quite agree with this; however it does raise the question as to whether Sanders has a responsibility to stop fighting Clinton, and whether he thinks he has been beaten.

Here's what Hillary Clinton had to say on May 23, 2008:
“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” Hillary Clinton said yesterday, referencing the fact that past nomination contests have stretched into June to explain why she hasn’t heeded calls to exit the Democratic race. She was in an editorial board meeting with a South Dakota newspaper, and she didn’t even seem to notice she’d just uttered the unutterable.

The nation’s political science students, our future strategists and campaign managers, would do well to pay attention to this moment. There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the biggest. To raise the specter of a rival’s assassination, even unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one isn’t. It sounds almost like wishful thinking.
The concern trolling wrt Sanders campaign right now is so completely insincere.
posted by ennui.bz at 3:39 PM on May 19, 2016 [45 favorites]


Add me to the chorus of "too early to be really worried about the polls"; after all, Hillary is currently "getting it from both sides".
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:40 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


What do you think of the prospect of a national unity ticket? I.e., what if Secretary Clinton selected a moderate Republican running mate, as a way of inviting #NeverTrump voters to her cause?

I don't think it will happen, because she should be able to win handily with a traditional Democratic electorate, and I don't think I even want it to happen, but it sure would be interesting.
posted by chrchr at 3:41 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


I really wish that people in safe blue states would keep in mind that there are lots of people reading your words who don't live in safe blue states, and the things you say can have an impact.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:41 PM on May 19, 2016 [22 favorites]


Okay, then, which comic book supervillain would be a good running mate for Drumphy?

Trump/The semantic virus from PontyPool?
posted by Balna Watya at 3:43 PM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]


oneswellfoop, how about General Zod or the Penguin?
posted by stolyarova at 3:43 PM on May 19, 2016


And, as if by magic, a new poll emerges showing a 6% Clinton lead but more support for the (eventual) nominee among Republicans than Democrats. Which backs up my general reading of the other recent polls, I think.
posted by howfar at 3:44 PM on May 19, 2016


Trump/The semantic virus from PontyPool?

So basically Trump/Trump 2016, he is a semantic virus already.
posted by stolyarova at 3:44 PM on May 19, 2016


I really wish that people in safe blue states would keep in mind that there are lots of people reading your words who don't live in safe blue states, and the things you say can have an impact.

I don't think people should self-censor themselves just because someone else's voting calculus may be different. Everything I write here (about the election or about anything) is from my perspective. I shouldn't have to lie just because someone else is working from a different perspective.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:45 PM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]


I really wish that people in safe blue states would keep in mind that there are lots of people reading your words who don't live in safe blue states, and the things you say can have an impact.

People should watch what they say
, in other words?
posted by entropicamericana at 3:46 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


Hadn't seen that quote about Kennedy before. But couldn't the mention of Kennedy just have been intended to mean "Kennedy was still in the race in June. Why not me?" And wasn't she significantly closer than Sanders?
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:46 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


this firing squad ain't gonna circle itself!
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:48 PM on May 19, 2016 [18 favorites]


Given the movement of NeverTrumpers to Trump since he locked up the nomination, polls comparing Clinton and Trump right now are silly. Wait a month or two until Clinton is in a comparable position and see what happens.

I mean, it was obvious Trump was going to win for weeks, but until Cruz and Kasich dropped out a lot of Republicans seemed to claim they would never vote for him. That is, as expected, changing. I suspect we will see exactly the same thing on the Dem side.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:50 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders is eroding his base of support right now in a quixotic attempt to reverse his fortunes and or force policy concessions from Clinton both of which seem exceedingly unlikely moving forward.

At first I thought it was largely Tad Devine pushing a hail mary strategy because he wanted to continue to do big media buys because he gets paid a percentage but the reality is that he's a hired gun and will want to get on the gravy train again in 2020 with a different candidate.

No increasingly this rhetoric is coming from Weaver and both Sanders who clearly don't have a solid end game planned out and seem to in effect shouting at clouds.

Pretty sad because I think he's squandered a good amount of good will at the same time he's squandered campaign contributions.
posted by vuron at 3:50 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


...the things you say can have an impact.

...so the fact that our votes are worthless, means that our words are too? That we should keep our opinions to ourselves? That we should not advocate for positions we believe in (provided that we do so with civility)?
posted by spacewrench at 3:50 PM on May 19, 2016 [18 favorites]


Clinton, iirc, waited a week after all the votes were counted to drop. She was just as persistent in the face of inevitable defeat as Sanders is being. Sanders should drop because he is hurting her chances right now for little reason, but he isn't doing anything unique here.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:52 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


I've been hearing people shit on Clinton since 1992 but you never know, the next comment might be the one that knocks the scales from my eyes
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [62 favorites]


Hadn't seen that quote about Kennedy before. But couldn't the mention of Kennedy just have been intended to mean "Kennedy was still in the race in June. Why not me?" And wasn't she significantly closer than Sanders?

Here we have her on June 4, refusing to concede after Obama clinched the delegate count:
NBC News and news services
updated 6/4/2008 12:41:49 AM ET

NEW YORK — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton Tuesday refused to bow out of the Democratic race Tuesday, hoping to maintain leverage as Barack Obama clinched the delegates needed to secure the party's nomination.

Clinton told supporters in a rally at Baruch College that she would consult party leaders in coming days on how to move forward, but that, "I will be making no decisions tonight."

"A lot of people are asking, 'What does Hillary want?'" Clinton said. "I want what I have always fought for: I want the nearly 18 million people who voted for me to be respected and heard."

Clinton told the crowd she would consult in the coming days with advisers about the fate of her moribund candidacy. But her remarks came hours after she told congressional colleagues she would be open to joining Obama as his running mate.

Many of her top supporters spoke openly of Clinton's potential vice presidential prospects. Lanny Davis, a former White House special counsel under President Clinton, said he told the former first lady Tuesday that he was initiating a petition to press Obama to select her for the second spot on the ticket. He said Clinton did not encourage or discourage the step.
She conceded on the 7th. I have no idea what she meant whe she suggested Obama could be assasinated during the primary, but... really, imagine if Sanders said something like that now. The complaints about Sanders not conceding are completely and totally insincere.
posted by ennui.bz at 3:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [27 favorites]


What do you think of the prospect of a national unity ticket? I.e., what if Secretary Clinton selected a moderate Republican running mate, as a way of inviting #NeverTrump voters to her cause?

About the same way I think of getting a free pet Unicorn, i.e. not often, briefly, and with little seriousness?
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


I know only two Bernie-or-Bust persons (one male, one female), and both of them are young and not very knowledgeable. I am a long-time socialist, so I have been supporting Bernie with slight enthusiasm (If you are a long-time socialist, you know Bernie has not been very supportive of other socialists, either). I will vote for Hillary when the time comes, but right now I am supporting Bernie's platform.
posted by acrasis at 3:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


I asked about K-12 education and one told me it wasn't as critical as free college because, "We already spend more per student in poor schools than rich schools, it's just not being used well."

If this is common thinking among young Bernie supporters, then they are not just mistaken, they are voicing a very dangerous conservative meme.

One thing that turned me off to Bernie early on was the overemphasis on "free college" with almost nothing to be said about K-12. Yes, college is expensive, but we can't even produce a consistent education out of our woefully underfunded schools.
posted by dw at 3:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


If what you say has an impact, then clearly it is not worthless.

That your candidate does not win does not mean your votes are worthless. I (and I suspect all the other pro HRC MeFis) respect the principles of most Sanders voters, and anticipate they will influence the direction of the platform and future policy choices.

I am weary of the instant reformulation of any statement into a complaint about a demeaning attack which didn't actually occur.
posted by bearwife at 3:55 PM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]


The complaints about Sanders not conceding are completely and totally insincere.

Would it be possible -- just theoretically -- to find both Clinton's behavior in 2008 and Sanders' behavior now to be less than ideal? Asking for a friend.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 3:55 PM on May 19, 2016 [55 favorites]


Okay, getting bored now since nothing much will truly be relevant prior to Bernie's reaction to getting mathematically eliminated after California (and even then not all that relevant). I do still support Wordshore's campaign for "most commented" title, but I also feel for the Moderators who are still going to be working here through November.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:57 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's ok, oneswellfoop, Trump will do something insane in the next day or two and give us something to talk about.
posted by mmoncur at 3:58 PM on May 19, 2016


Christ, the Sanders Nevada freakout and statement are so dumb.

Like, imagine an alternate universe where Sanders could become the nominee — maybe some Clinton email discusses procuring Serbian baby blood for her to bathe in, keeping her skin taut. In that case, in order to win the general, Sanders is still going to have to persuade Clinton voters to come around to him. Having a massive freakout is counter productive, alienates people whose votes he'd need if he had a legit chance, and just feeds Stabbed In The Back fantasy explanations for why his message isn't actually as compelling for a majority of Dem voters.

If Sanders isn't going to act like he's got a chance and this is a legit campaign, it just seems like a cynical bilking of people new to primary processes. It's going to end up burning out people and turning them away from doing the (dull, unglamorous) work necessary to win at local levels and keep pushing an actual grassroots progressive platform.
posted by klangklangston at 3:59 PM on May 19, 2016 [15 favorites]


Would it be possible -- just theoretically -- to find both Clinton's behavior in 2008 and Sanders' behavior now to be less than ideal? Asking for a friend.

Tell your friend that the judgements of Sanders' campaign right now are based on the expectation that the "left" in the Democratic party is just going to roll over and play dead, like they've been doing since Mondale lost. Sanders may end up doing so, but I hope not. I hope he continues to challenge the sale of the party to Wall Street into the election in November.
posted by ennui.bz at 4:00 PM on May 19, 2016 [20 favorites]


I voted for Clinton in 2008 and was repeatedly massively disappointed in how her campaign was run. One thing that makes me even more enthusiastic about her in 2016 is that by all evidence she learned from that and isn't repeating those mistakes and is running a much better campaign this time around.

And yeah on preview re: klangklangston's point, a perfectly logical and reasonable response to being repeatedly told that the electoral system is rigged and corrupt and bought and paid for is to say well why fucking bother participating. That is awful, destructive messaging.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:02 PM on May 19, 2016 [15 favorites]


If Sanders isn't going to act like he's got a chance and this is a legit campaign, it just seems like a cynical bilking of people new to primary processes. It's going to end up burning out people and turning them away from doing the (dull, unglamorous) work necessary to win at local levels and keep pushing an actual grassroots progressive platform.

what happened in Nevada is a pretty clear signal that Sanders supporters aren't welcome in the local party operations.
posted by ennui.bz at 4:02 PM on May 19, 2016 [22 favorites]


i was for Obama in '08 from the beginning and thought that HRC really didn't look good with the RFK comment and my opinion of her dipped. Then she conceded and fought for Obama.

So I don't think Sanders looks good and maybe he'll pull it together and it'll be all kumbya here in Philly. But that is not the tenor of his recent comments. HRC was never in the *I'm gonna burn it down* camp that I can recall
posted by angrycat at 4:03 PM on May 19, 2016 [11 favorites]


Thanks for the new thread, Wordshore. Continuing the conversation from the previous thread:

> If that ends up being the kind of concession Sanders demands, I think Clinton 100% can and should promise to take that issue up at the convention... Push to standardize a process for setting debate schedules and assigning rules committee seats and so on, going forward. She has nothing much to lose by making that kind of concession...

But would this really satisfy disaffected Sanders voters? Sanders fans in this thread -- would this make you feel the system is less rigged, going forward? Or would it be seen as too little too late?


I think it would help a lot. Sanders supporters have been under constant attack from Hillary supporters telling us progressive Democrats have no place in the Democratic Party. Fuck-you gestures from the DNC on top of that haven't helped. Any gestures from Clinton indicating she herself doesn't hate us, and accepts Sanders supporters as part of the party would go a long ways.
posted by nangar at 4:03 PM on May 19, 2016 [18 favorites]


Hillary was dramatically closer to securing the nomination in 2008 than Sanders is now. The reality is that Sanders ran a mediocre campaign and actually exceeded expectations but has absolutely no idea of what to do with his new profile other than spam the same tired stump speech over and over.

At this point I actually think he's diminishing the support for his policies because people will seek to disassociate from the train wreck his campaign has become.
posted by vuron at 4:03 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]


Anything that gets more Larry David on tv is good for America.
posted by peeedro at 4:05 PM on May 19, 2016


Maybe they just mean that people should keep in mind that a person's voting options are very dependent on their state?

So you have someone saying, "It's a civic duty to keep Trump out of office." but others disagree. But it really depends on your state. If you're in a state that is going to go to whatever democrat no matter what and always will, then yeah, you can probably vote for whoever you want but if you're in a swing state, I think your options are A. Trump or B. Whatever vote is most likely to keep Trump out of the oval office AKA Clinton.

I mean, I would have caucused to vote for Sanders but I checked and it was all-or-nothing and it was definitely going to go to Clinton so I just stayed home (since there aren't lesser offices to vote for, seriously, WEIRD people run for some of the down-ballot stuff). In the general, I was always going to vote for whatever democrat won the nomination, it's doubly true now that Trump is the presumptive nominee. Until I have a real option to vote for a 3rd party without throwing my vote away, I'm always going to use my vote in whatever way is most likely to keep the republican out of every office I can.
posted by VTX at 4:06 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


oneswellfoop, good call on Zod. Penguin is also not an American, so can't be him either. How about the Riddler? He might actually give Donny some canny campaign strategy.
posted by stolyarova at 4:06 PM on May 19, 2016


Okay, then, which comic book supervillain would be a good running mate for Drumphy?

What about Amanda Waller? She's used to working for Luthor, and managing lunatics into the bargain, plus she'd make Drumpf look better re: women and PoC.
posted by tautological at 4:07 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


She pointed to Trump's... willingness to speak with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un

Yeah, so, anything that demilitarizes the Korean Peninsula is a good thing, and this has to be part of the solution. Hillary is wrong on this one. Our current policy of regularly conducting live-fire exercises off the coast of North Korea isn't helping. They're asking for a peace treaty to end the war which we are still technically in with them, which is an entirely reasonable thing to ask for.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:07 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]


Hillary supporters telling us progressive Democrats have no place in the Democratic Party.
Again, Mr. Sanders himself had no place in the Democratic Party until recently, which explains A LOT about the DNC's treatment of him AND his response. In other words, for me, no surprises at all.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:07 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ennui, maybe the nomination of less liberal candidates than you would like is that not one very liberal candidate has come close to winning since FDR? I'm all for moving the Overton window left, but I also like winning elections, nominating SC justices, passing healthcare, etc., especially when the alternative is the recent incarnation of the Republican Party. The country isn't always as left as we'd like it.
posted by chris24 at 4:07 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


I've heard his stump speech many times now and I'm not sure I'll ever tire of it. To hear someone speaking so bluntly and openly about issues not discussed in America is refreshing, which is why I suspect he continues to draw tens of thousands to his rallies.
posted by kyp at 4:08 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


OH I'VE GOT IT. Scarecrow. He can scare people into believing Trump's fear politics schtick.
posted by stolyarova at 4:08 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


On May 20, 2008, Obama won Oregon and clinched a majority of pledged delegates. At that point, the only reason Hillary stayed in the race was because there were still enough superdelegates + regular delegates left that she could have won, and she'd won a majority of votes (mindful, of course, that Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot due to the penalties against them for trying to go too early). She, in theory, had a minuscule shot. But she would only be able to do it by flipping superdelegates. She should have dropped out on May 20; the fact she stayed in two more weeks really looked like an awful fiasco.

As of today, Hillary is still 255 short of a majority of pledged delegates. I believe, once she clinches that (yes, it's why I keep saying June 7 over and over and over again), there is zero reason for Bernie to stay in the race. Until them, I have no problem with him staying in the race.

But. Like I said in the last thread, we're late in the basketball game and Bernie is down considerably to Hillary. Play hard, but stop fouling, because you're pissing everyone off. And certainly don't flagrant foul.
posted by dw at 4:09 PM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]


DW, totally stealing that analogy for a basketball fan Bernie or Bust friend of mine.
posted by chris24 at 4:11 PM on May 19, 2016


Here are my current thoughts on the Sanders vs. Clinton issue:

If people bring it up to me, maybe they will stop if I scream and scream and just keep screaming.

No?

I should probably scream some more.
posted by kyrademon at 4:13 PM on May 19, 2016 [19 favorites]


Okay, then, which comic book supervillain would be a good running mate for Drumphy?

muttley
posted by pyramid termite at 4:17 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't get what the Democratic establishment is doing right now. Hillary has it won. They should be courting Bernie's voters; instead they seem to be doing everything possible to alienate them. Considering how the Dems lost the House and Senate, along with so many State Houses and governorships, it seems to me we should be questioning them not Bernie - who went from nothing to practically winning the nomination. Not to mention one of the Dems' chosen candidate's biggest claims to fame is losing in 2008. This is starting to give me a very bad feeling about the general election. Obama can not save them this time.
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:18 PM on May 19, 2016 [24 favorites]


I'm not sure what it actually is that The Establishment is supposed to be doing right now to court these voters. They're not exactly telling Sanders voters to go fuck themselves.
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:20 PM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


I should probably scream some more.

i was on vacation for two weeks with limited internet access and i have only just caught up on the previous megathread and i also want to scream
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:22 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


Scarecrow. He can scare people into believing Trump's fear politics schtick.

Oooh, good point. Maybe Sebastian Shaw or Emma Frost to manipulate the Kochs to his side?
posted by tautological at 4:24 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


One thing that turned me off to Bernie early on was the overemphasis on "free college" with almost nothing to be said about K-12.

Yeah, that's sort of weird. Mostly that's saying people who went to K-12 in good schools would get free college, many who could afford it anyway.

But I'm one of those people who thinks "the college education" is way over marketed. I think we'd be fine if we gave everyone a really good K-12 education.
posted by bongo_x at 4:26 PM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]


I am going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

But the silence from her camp and many other quarters regarding the many, multiple accusations of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape really saddens and upsets me and I'm not really sure what to do with those feelings.
posted by lalex at 4:26 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


what happened in Nevada is a pretty clear signal that Sanders supporters aren't welcome in the local party operations.

ennui.bz, what do you mean by "what happened in Nevada"? I'm interested in what your take is on it, so I can understand what it's signaling to you. A reference to "what happened" can be interpreted in so many ways.
posted by defenestration at 4:28 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Never before has the phrase 'Fear and Loathing' been more appropriate. Thanks Hunter. We miss you. You would have had so much fun with this election. If it didn't cause your head to explode with incredible violence.
posted by Splunge at 4:29 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


I should probably scream some more.

I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
posted by mordax at 4:30 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Including the super delegates, who are not flipping to Sanders at all, Clinton is within 90 of clinching the votes needed for the nomination. She has 1768 delegates, plus 525 super delegates at a minimum, and it is 2383 to win on the first ballot. She's going to pick up more from the caucuses in the Virgin Islands and PR, and she is certainly going to win New Jersey (and likely California and New Mexico too) on June 7.

So, yes, if people who have supported Sanders and want to see his policies enacted are planning ahead, now would be a good time to begin to think about the party platform and how to defeat Trump and take red legislatures and governorships and perhaps Congress back in November.

I am real unhappy with the recent happenings in the Sanders campaign, but I think it is completely counterproductive to attack his supporters, who are understandably upset and disappointed. And as for the Bernie or Bust people, I've given up on them anyway.
posted by bearwife at 4:31 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


This interview with Howard Dean sheds some light on Bernie's mindset.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:32 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Lalex, she has spoken many times about what can only be a very painful issue for her. What, and why, do you need to hear again, just because someone dragged it out again?
posted by Dashy at 4:32 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


> I'm not sure what it actually is that The Establishment is supposed to be doing right now to court these voters. They're not exactly telling Sanders voters to go fuck themselves.

They certainly seem to be. And this worries me.

("They" being DWS and Clinton surrogates, mostly.)
posted by nangar at 4:35 PM on May 19, 2016 [11 favorites]


[These threads are long enough without complete derails into supervillain chatter, thanks.]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:35 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm starting to feel like Elizabeth Warren would be a good pick for VP despite all the much discussed downsides. I think Bernie supporters would generally be happy with that pick?
posted by Justinian at 4:36 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


"One thing that turned me off to Bernie early on was the overemphasis on "free college" with almost nothing to be said about K-12."

I gotta tell you, what really stuck in my craw with these two dudes was they had a burning ember of rage that the political system was built to exclude them -- white, cis, het men with upper-middle class parents attending a $40,000 a year private college -- but couldn't work up more than a shrug for women, minorities, LGBT people, the poor, or anybody else. It's a clearly broken institution when it listens to Goldman Sachs bankers but not aspiring future Goldman Sachs bankers like them; it's totally shruggo when it's anybody else, because institutional racism isn't a thing anymore, and women already have equal rights, and poor people just don't work hard enough, and LOOK THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT WE PRIVILEGED YOUNG WHITE MEN ARE BEING IGNORED. It was like, try to be even the tiniest bit woke, dudes. Try to exercise the smallest morsel of empathy. They just had some kind of special armor that protected them against even the tiniest bit of self-awareness. (And yeah, I know, that armor is called privilege, but plenty of their equally privileged classmates were way more with-it. These guys were just kind-of ... unique.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:36 PM on May 19, 2016 [76 favorites]


They're not exactly telling Sanders voters to go fuck themselves.

They certainly seem to be. And this worries me.


I'm still unclear on what it is that reads as "go fuck yourselves". Not giving him the election?
posted by bongo_x at 4:37 PM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]


I've never really understood either, bongo_x. I see a lot of rage about DWS... who, yes, is clearly and understandably pulling for Clinton... but I haven't actually ever gotten a lot of specifics on what she has done to screw over Sanders so badly.
posted by Justinian at 4:40 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Lalex, she has spoken many times about what can only be a very painful issue for her. What, and why, do you need to hear again, just because someone dragged it out again?

I would like her to address her role in discrediting, tarring, and destroying these women. If she has done so I've not seen it.
posted by lalex at 4:53 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


Justinian: "I haven't actually ever gotten a lot of specifics on what she has done to screw over Sanders so badly."

As near as I can tell -- and I've admittedly not kept up nearly as much with this as others have -- one of the more substantive objections were regarding the debate schedules. Namely that there were not enough debates and they weren't scheduled at particularly good times... which is basically what every underdog candidate who could use more exposure would complain about. I seriously haven't been able to grok the level of vitriol from some Sanders supporters (say, r/SandersForPresident redditors) regarding these seemingly (to me) run-of-the-mill party and campaign stuff like this.
posted by mhum at 4:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


Her line about superdelegates being a necessary firewall against the grass roots doesn't exactly endear her to the self-identifying grass roots supporting Bernie.
posted by delfin at 4:55 PM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]


I'm actually a bit unclear on this: do the candidates agree on the debate dates?
posted by defenestration at 4:56 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


What evidence do you have that HRC -destroyed- Lewinsky, or others, herself?
posted by Dashy at 5:00 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


And yet superdelegates are now Bernie's only feasible route to victory. They're a firewall in that they could have saved the GOP from Trump, and they protect the Democrats from another 1980 style floor fight. But they're still sway-able.

Hillary was telling the truth. Those are the rules. I think Bernie could have swayed the superdelegates if he'd figured out how to break through among people of color and older whites. But he just never did.
posted by dw at 5:01 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]


Sorry for my dumb question. This Wikipedia article is a pretty good resource for anyone else wondering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016
posted by defenestration at 5:01 PM on May 19, 2016


I would like her to address her role in discrediting, tarring, and destroying these women. If she has done so I've not seen it.

This is conspiracy theory nonsense. Hillary and Huma and Debbie, the wicked trio.
posted by feste at 5:02 PM on May 19, 2016 [10 favorites]


They certainly seem to be. And this worries me.

("They" being DWS and Clinton surrogates, mostly.)


I think there would be a lot less animosity towards Sanders staying in the race if his tactics weren't focused on denouncing Clinton and the DNC as wholly corrupt and the entire election process as rigged.

If his speeches were policy-focused, if he was attempted to address actual issues, then his claim that he's staying in order to influence policy would seem more legit.
posted by schroedinger at 5:05 PM on May 19, 2016 [18 favorites]


> I am real unhappy with the recent happenings in the Sanders campaign, but I think it is completely counterproductive to attack his supporters, who are understandably upset and disappointed.

I wish more of your fellow Hillary supporters agreed.

Personally, I'm not even upset and disappointed. We've gotten over 40% the national convention delegates. We've built an informal network of grassroots organizations that can support progressive candidates in the future. A lot of people who weren't previously involved in the political process have gotten involved and learned a lot about how campaigns work. This is pretty much the best outcome I had hoped for when the campaign started. I just want the attacks to stop.
posted by nangar at 5:07 PM on May 19, 2016 [20 favorites]


Trump called Bill Clinton a rapist in his interview with Sean Hannity last night. It's maybe the third or fourth time he's called him a rapist in the past couple of weeks. He is absolutely going to keep calling Bill Clinton a rapist, and Hillary an enabler of his sexual aggression, all the way until November. There are entire books written about this stuff that have been floating around in right-wing circles since the 90s. Today Hillary tried to brush it off and said that she would not discuss it. But I don't know. It seems like Trump and conservative media are going to try to equate Bill Clinton with Bill Cosby, and sink Hillary through association. It's a legitimate concern to have.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:09 PM on May 19, 2016 [18 favorites]


And some people (not here) just don't seem to understand superdelegates. I saw another FB post today by somebody saying Hillary was going to win because of her superdelegates and was angry about it.

(I suppose its technically true, but neither Bernie nor Hillary can win without superdelegates at this point, and if they were eliminated she would obviously win anyways, although I know people here basically understand this).
posted by thefoxgod at 5:09 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just want the attacks to stop.

I think Clinton supporters feel the same way. It kind of sucks when the opponent is spending most of his time calling your candidate corrupt and the election rigged, and then if you push back the opponent's supporters get upset because they feel you're alienating them.
posted by schroedinger at 5:11 PM on May 19, 2016 [35 favorites]


(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates A genuine question to Bernie Sanders supporters who are mad at Clinton and the DNC for various reasons. What is it exactly that you would like Clinton to do in the coming week, weeks, months?

Not a Bernie Or Buster, I've already pledged to volunteer for Clinton after the convention.

But you asked so here it is.

Why I didn't (and don't) like Clinton Identity politics. But not the way the term is typically used. I see her as a member of and supporter of the billionaire looter class, the Beige Dictatorship (a term I do not direct at any voters or anyone who isn't an actual politician or political appointee), whatever you want to call it. She's part of the nice faction of the Beige Dictatorship, she's not like the gleefully malicious Romney types. But nice faction or gleeful evil faction, that's still who and what she is, she was born to it, she has lived it her whole life.

My initial support of Sanders was almost entirely based on the fact that he wasn't part of the billionaire looter class, that he seemed to be a break from the Beige Dictatorship. Not really based on any specific policy proposal, but almost entirely around the fact that, for the first time in my entire life, a candidate for President had appeared who wasn't part of that class.

Several things reinforced my belief that she was basically not on my side simply due to who and what she is.

The $15/hour minimum wage thing. She could have just said she agreed in principle, the President doesn't set minimum wage and the difference between a $12/hour minimum and a $15/hour minimum seems, well, petty and largely irrelevant. To me it was yet another example of the sort of reflexive triangulation and compromise for its own sake that I've seen from Democrats my whole life, more of the same Beige Dictator crap we've seen from Obama, and before him Bill Clinton. Cut the shit and just take my side please!

Then there was the time she declared that universal single payer was impossible because America couldn't afford it. She could have said that she had philosophic reasons for supporting multi-payer systems but was utterly committed to universal health care no matter how it was achieved. Instead she regurgitated a bullshit billionaire looter lie, because that's who she is and what she genuinely believes.

I wanted someone who wasn't part of that billionaire looter class, someone who didn't reflexively triangulate and compromise away everything, someone who wasn't Beige and who was able to actually fight the good fight and try for the whole loaf instead of unthinkingly going for less.

What she can do now: Again, she doesn't have to try and buy or win my support, it's there simply on the grounds that she's not-Trump. I'll vote for a literal sack of shit rather than Donald Trump.

But I'd feel better and really like it if she'd start pledging and working to make structural changes in the DNC and how the state parties work. I think it is undeniable at this point that the DNC is a deeply corrupt and broken system, especially the Byzantine way primaries work (especially especially the horrible caucus system).

Unlike most policy proposals for national politics, Clinton actually does (or will have once she's president) the power to really create change in the way the DNC works, and through that significant influence over the way the state parties work. Get rid of superdelegates, that sort of thing.

Ideally she'd be pushing to abridge the godawful primary season and end this monstrous multi-year slog before we even get to the real election season.

I don't ask for anything regarding taxes or foreign policy or whatever because a) I wouldn't believe what she says (remember when Obama promised to fillibuster the telecom immunity bill? Yeah, so do I, never trust a Beige person), and b) she can't do it anyway because the President isn't a dictator. But changes to the DNC she can do, and I'd really love it if she would.
posted by sotonohito at 5:11 PM on May 19, 2016 [51 favorites]


Is your concern that HRC did what the right wing would like to claim, or that the right wing will smear her with sexist smut by association? There's a crucial difference I hope you see.
posted by Dashy at 5:11 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is conspiracy theory nonsense. Hillary and Huma and Debbie, the wicked trio.

I don't know how Huma Abedin and DWS got involved here, but no, it isn't conspiracy theory nonsense. Reasonable people can be concerned about how Hillary's role in the 1990s allegations against Bill.

I would like to hear her say she would handle it differently.
posted by lalex at 5:13 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


And if your concern is the latter, why is that a reason against her? It should be why you defend her.
posted by Dashy at 5:15 PM on May 19, 2016


Quit trying to make "beige" happen. I'll buy everyone a beer if we can eliminate "beige" and "optics".
posted by bongo_x at 5:15 PM on May 19, 2016 [36 favorites]


Lalex, that is rumormonging, verbally repeated. It is not evidence, nor does it bring validity to it.
posted by Dashy at 5:16 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


Y'all know Vermin Supreme is still running, dontcha?
posted by waitingtoderail at 5:17 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


For some evidence for my earlier claim about Clinton and Democrats, 538 looked at exit polls. In literally every state except Vermont, Clinton won the vote among self-identified Democrats (as opposed to registered --- in closed primaries, it wouldn't be uncommon to have a self-identified independent register as Democrat to vote in the primary). She has the support of the party. What she needs is the support of independents.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:19 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Second round is on me if we can kill 'momentum'
posted by Dashy at 5:19 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


The problem with the "all those women are lying" defense is that it's a) icky and b) gross. So yeah, I do think she needs a better response than what we've heard so far. And again, I'm a Clinton supporter.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:19 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


Whoops, missed New Hampshire as another exception.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:20 PM on May 19, 2016


That Vox article is pure clickbait. Here's the TLDR

So far, this issue has mostly been raised by conservative media and Republican politicians like Prudhomme-O'Brien.

and this:

There are three main accusers, of whom it seems by far the most credible — based on the publicly available evidence — is Broaddrick. Jones's claim was aired for years and faced several major problems (including the fact that she claimed the president's penis had a "distinguishing mark" that doctors and Monica Lewinsky said it did not have), and Willey repeatedly lied to federal investigators and changed her story dramatically between grand jury testimony and a deposition in the Jones case (among other issues).

But Broaddrick's allegation, while hardly proven, has not been definitively refuted.


It's Alex Jones-level storytelling
posted by feste at 5:21 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't even understand the beige thing. I associate beige with walls and/or carpet. There's a lot of beige in rental apartments because it's neutral and works with whatever furniture you have. What did beige ever do to you?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:23 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


Lalex, Bill Clinton lost my support at the time based on his sexual victimization of vulnerable and/or subordinate women -- I never voted for the man and his incredible egotism still makes me grit my teeth -- but there is no evidence Hillary abetted him. The article doesn't actually provide any.

Also, HRC has been a bold and consistent advocate for women.

Also, Trump is very likely a rapist per Ivanka's book and certainly a long time womanizer and sexist who has energetically demeaned women throughout this campaign.

Speaking as a feminist with a long background of fighting for sexual assault and domestic violence victims, I think you are pointing at the wrong target.
posted by bearwife at 5:25 PM on May 19, 2016 [26 favorites]


The Democrats started out with a truly pathetic debate schedule, and getting the Clinton campaign to agree to more was like pulling teeth, yeah. It was widely thought the debate schedule was purposely limited to insulate Clinton as front-runner.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:26 PM on May 19, 2016 [11 favorites]


Where are the attacks from Clinton exactly? Clinton has said pretty much nothing other than emphasizing that she is going to be the nominee. Her surrogates have mostly expressed a desire to not have state party chairs and their families harassed, not have chairs thrown, and not have one of the more liberal Democratic senators screamed at when she's trying to speak. And yes, they've called for Sanders to acknowledge the reality of the delegate math right now.

In turn, Sanders has turned his attacks from "the system" in general being rigged to the party and this nominating processing being rigged. And when you ask for examples of what's rigged, I hear about things like some debates on Friday and Saturday night or complaints that superdelegates endorsed Clinton early, as though it's a bad thing for a candidate to have secured the support of the vast majority of those leading her party. And what I don't hear about are the actually undemocratic parts of the Democratic primary process, like caucuses and superdelgates, because those happen to have been the main things that Sanders has had going for him. And the more anybody talks about the primary being "rigged," the more they undermine the fact that millions more people voted for the other candidate.

So where does this leave us? I just wish Sanders could stop lashing out at the party and its members and try to preserve the enormous support and goodwill he's generated, goodwill that's disappearing by the minute right now, so that it could be used in an organized way to back progressive causes for years to come. Sanders has actually gotten young progressives to turn out and care. That doesn't have to end. The "Bernie Sanders Seal of Approval," along with that email list and other initiatives, could be used for years to drive turnout for everyone from progressive state legislators to Congressional candidates Sanders supports. None of that can happen if Sanders insists on a fight to the death.
posted by zachlipton at 5:26 PM on May 19, 2016 [25 favorites]


Seriously, this beige thing is atrocious. I can't shake the feeling that most people trying to make it a thing have figured out that "sheeple" isn't going to go over well among adults, but just can't let it go.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 5:26 PM on May 19, 2016 [22 favorites]


It's Alex Jones-level storytelling

Or maybe it's a victim that looks untrustworthy for various reasons but is in fact telling the truth. It's wrong to be too dismissive of these allegations. The best legal minds and political operators available were, and are, there to protect Bill from them.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:27 PM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]


Also, HRC has been a bold and consistent advocate for women.

I think this is a really good response to every single question she gets about Bill. Just immediately pivot and discuss how she's devoted her life to helping women. But she can't keep saying "no comment" and "the voters don't care" when people bring this up. She just can't.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:29 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


Is your concern that HRC did what the right wing would like to claim, or that the right wing will smear her with sexist smut by association? There's a crucial difference I hope you see.

Lalex, that is rumormonging, verbally repeated. It is not evidence, nor does it bring validity to it.

You can call it whatever you want, but these are sourced, widespread, and, let's be honest, credible accounts from multiple non-crazy sources including Democrats.

I don't give a shit about what right wing fantasists think, but quite frankly I think the "it's just more right-wing persecution" line of defense is inappropriate here. The role she played in the response to these scandals and what she'd do differently are relevant topics and I'd like to see her address them. Maybe all the reporting is wrong and if so I would be happy to hear her say that.

Again, I am a Democrat and I will be voting for Hillary.
posted by lalex at 5:30 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


I have come to loathe Bernie Sanders. I don't feel the Bern, I want him to pound sand.
posted by humanfont at 5:31 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]




Reasonable people can be concerned about how Hillary's role in the 1990s allegations against Bill.

reasonable people can be sick and tired of the whole goddamned mess - haven't we heard about this enough?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:32 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Democrats started out with a truly pathetic debate schedule, and getting the Clinton campaign to agree to more was like pulling teeth, yeah. It was widely thought the debate schedule was purposely limited to insulate Clinton as front-runner.

It obviously was. But to me that's like elementary level politics not "BURN THE CORRUPT SYSTEM TO THE GROUND" stuff. A corrupt system keeping Bernie down would be maneuvering to keep his name off the ballot or the like. Not sticking the first couple of debates in wonky timeslots before moving to a more regular schedule once the primary became more contested.
posted by Justinian at 5:33 PM on May 19, 2016 [12 favorites]


There was originally an agreement for six debates. As the race heated up, they added three more. I honestly think that having an average of 1.3 debates a month (plus many town halls/forums) from October-April is pretty darn reasonable and that the only justification for even more is to cheer on your preferred candidate or hope someone screws up horribly rather than learn something new about their positions.

If you want to blame DWS for something about the debates, then blame her for maneuvering to ensure Lessig was kept out. I had all sorts of problems with that short-lived campaign, but it would have been a good thing for democracy had he been able to make his unconventional pitch on the debate stage at least once.
posted by zachlipton at 5:33 PM on May 19, 2016


I'd like to see her address them.

I was alive during the 90s. There was a whole rightwing industry devoted to Clinton scandals. The Drudge Report (which is mentioned as a source in that Vox article) *began* life as an anti-Clinton website. You will never satisfy conspiracy theorists. No facts, no addressing of issues will be enough.
posted by feste at 5:36 PM on May 19, 2016 [41 favorites]


sotonohito: "I think it is undeniable at this point that the DNC is a deeply corrupt and broken system, especially the Byzantine way primaries work (especially especially the horrible caucus system). "

Byzantine? Definitely. Broken? Eh, maybe. Corrupt? [citation needed]

At this point, I'm going to have to admit that I have less and less idea what certain Bernie supporters are specifically complaining about when they're complaining about "corruption". Around half the time, I could substitute "satanism/satanic" for "corruption/corrupt" and lose no meaning in the various posts I see on my Facebook from my most hardcore Bernie-supporting friends. And, specifically regarding corruption in DNC primary stuff, I have so little frame of reference for what the basis for these accusations are. Like, surely they're not claiming that Hillary's campaign is dropping satchels of unmarked, non-sequential twenties on the back porch of state Democratic party chairpersons, right?
posted by mhum at 5:36 PM on May 19, 2016 [12 favorites]


It obviously was. But to me that's like elementary level politics not "BURN THE CORRUPT SYSTEM TO THE GROUND" stuff.

Death by a thousand papercuts.
posted by kyp at 5:40 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Drudge Report (which is mentioned as a source in that Vox article) *began* life as an anti-Clinton website.

Yes, it began mainly by correctly reporting that Bill Clinton had an affair with a young woman who worked for him as an intern. Which Bill of course denied, one of many bald faced lies to the American people or under oath before God. There's a reason it's easy to have conspiracy theories about Bill, one was true.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:42 PM on May 19, 2016 [19 favorites]


I was alive during the 90s. There was a whole rightwing industry devoted to Clinton scandals. The Drudge Report (which is mentioned as a source in that Vox article) *began* life as an anti-Clinton website. You will never satisfy conspiracy theorists. No facts, no addressing of issues will be enough.

I was also alive and politically aware during the 90s. To my great shame, I bought into the spin (which, let's be honest, was not mainly advanced by Republicans) that these women were trashy liars that craved attention and power. Even Monica, dear God.

I am a woman and a feminist and it is painful, like seriously painful to hear her discuss issues of sexual violence without hearing her address her role in the treatment of these women.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I like Hillary personally. Hillary addressing the issues and telling us the facts would actually be enough for me. But I would like to hear something and I don't think I'm alone in this.
posted by lalex at 5:45 PM on May 19, 2016 [23 favorites]


I bet that at some point Trump promises that he will never die.

Well, um, let me just say I'm really sorry about this, but I can't resist:
And they are dancing, the board floor slamming under the jackboots and the fiddlers grinning hideously over their canted pieces. Towering over them all is the donald and he is naked dancing, his small hands lively and quick and now in doubletime and bowing to the hispanics, huge and pale and orangehaired, like an enormous infant. He never sleeps, he says. He says he’ll never die. He bows to the fiddlers and sashays backwards and throws back his head and laughs deep in his throat and he is a great favorite, the donald. He wafts his hat and the over comb of his skull passes yellowy under the lamps and he swings about and takes possession of one of the fiddles and he pirouettes and makes a pass, two passes, dancing and fiddling all at once. His hands are small and nimble. He never sleeps. He says that he will never die. He dances in light and in shadow and he is a great favorite. He never sleeps, the donald. He is dancing, dancing. He says that he will never die.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 5:46 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


Does this mean we finally have to decide once and for all what the meaning of "is" is?!
posted by anarch at 5:46 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Does this mean we finally have to decide once and for all what the meaning of "is" is?!

And destroy metafilter? And the universe?
posted by futz at 5:51 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hillary addressing the issues and telling us the facts would actually be enough for me. But I would like to hear something and I don't think I'm alone in this.

What does this mean, though? If Hillary said, "I didn't do the things that smearmongers have accused me of doing, and several of Bill's accusers were not credible anyway," would that satisfy you?
posted by vathek at 5:52 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Beige Dictatorship (prev)
posted by MikeKD at 5:52 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Trump anti-semitic brigade is out in force again.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:53 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ugh, this is why I never wanted her to run, why I was so happy to have Obama as an alternative to support in 2008, because the Clinton sex scandals would never go away, never stop being something she needed to address, even from her own party, even after her advocacy of women's rights. And I hate that it's Democrats who say, "I like her, but she needs to address it." What should she say? Should she confess? "Yes, I threatened those bitches!" Or should she say "I'm sorry I didn't believe the stories, and I was wrong, here Bernie, you be the nominee!" Or should she divorce him, once and for all.

How should she address the issue?

My poor, stupid party.
posted by feste at 5:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [32 favorites]


She's tough and smart. I think she'll figure it out.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:55 PM on May 19, 2016 [11 favorites]


pyramid termite: "reasonable people can be sick and tired of the whole goddamned mess - haven't we heard about this enough?"

I've recently come to a certain realization. Let's say you have a voter for whom 2016 is not their first nor second, but let's say third presidential election cycle that they're eligible to vote in (i.e.: 2008's Obama vs. McCain would have been their first). That voter is under the age of thirty. Which means that they would have been at most 6 years old when Bill Clinton was elected and 13 years old when he was impeached. Unless this hypothetical voter was unusually precocious and interested in politics as a child, they would really not have had that much direct exposure to all of the 1990's "vast right-wing conspiracy" stuff -- Whitewater, who murdered Vince Foster, Arkansas state troopers running drugs out of Little Rock airport, etc. Never mind those even younger voters for whom these things were circulating before they were even born...

Sometimes I wonder if there is actually a noticeable chunk of the Democratic electorate who has not acquired immunity to these memetic viruses. At the same time, maybe this isn't all bad. There were definitely people in the 1990s on the Dem side who dismissed the sexual harassment accusations against Bill Clinton because they automatically lumped them into all the other crazy stuff coming out of the Arkansas Project.
posted by mhum at 5:55 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


A meta meta comment:

To me, the back and forth in this thread over allegations of malfeasance within the Democratic Party is another sign that the 2 candidate system, both within and without the party, is something that needs serious reform. Both are the natural result of first past the post voting and a lack of a preferential voting system.

There is close to zero viability for independents and other parties, so we end up with an environment where sometimes we cannot cede ground for fear of damaging the prospects of a candidate in the general election.
posted by kyp at 5:56 PM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


I am Lewinsky's age, and it was utterly, painfully clear that she was so naively getting thrown under a bus driven by a woman named Tripp.
posted by Dashy at 5:59 PM on May 19, 2016 [21 favorites]


How should she address the issue?

I would personally be pleased to hear anything between "No, I did not participate in these smear campaigns" to "Yes, I did participate but I was wrong." And probably numerous variations outside that spectrum that I haven't thought of.

Like (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates said, she's smart and tough and she can figure out a way to address this. It honestly diminishes her to descend in fury and attack anyone who brings up these real, legitimate concerns that non-crazy people have. She doesn't need your protection.
posted by lalex at 6:01 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Just a quick re-review of a few of the manifest problems with the primary process, which long predate Sanders and which will continue long after he is forgotten (assuming they aren't fixed any time soon):

- Caucuses *
- First states are overwhelmingly white and somewhat conservative *
- Sequencing more generally, which is almost inevitably biased +
- Sheer length of the process (which is separate from the sequence) *
- Super-delegates +
- Party control of the process that is free to favor certain candidates +
- No voice for Independents who are behaviorally Democrats +
- Insane patchwork of state systems that are opaque to most voters +/*
- Media focus on wins, momentum, optics, etc, that makes everyone stupider +/*

Note that about half of these flaws helped Sanders (*), and about half helped Clinton (+). So in addition to reflecting most established norms of democratic representation, it's also fairly non-partisan to say that the system badly needs reform.
posted by chortly at 6:02 PM on May 19, 2016 [22 favorites]


I am Lewinsky's age, and it was utterly, painfully clear that she was so naively getting thrown under a bus driven by a woman named Tripp.

where is Bill Clinton's role in this?
posted by lalex at 6:03 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]




Ugh, okay, so I just kind of did a mental exercise and tried to be like a late-comer J.Q. Public type of voter, who turns on the news and sees:
-Trump is actually starting to look like an adult. Winning the nomination and meeting with Ryan and Mitch McConnell in DC, heading down to NJ to help Chris Christie. Probably looking presidential, at least more presidential than the other side...
-Which is still smarting from the Nevada Caucus meltdown over freaking five delegates. Both sides pointing fingers at each other and busy fighting about inside baseball stuff, which most regular folks either wonder why the Democrats didn't settle way before this election or just proves to them that, "Gee, those Democrats are sure a contentious people". Then we have Clinton, who now is being seen as a weak general candidate, because she can't wrap up the nomination and unite the party. And then there's Bernie Sanders who hates the Party he's running in and threatening to unleash hell.

This is actually looking like a very, very good month for Donald Trump. And we don't have many months left on the calendar, so I really hope somebody other than Trump knows what they're doing at this point.
posted by FJT at 6:04 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie Sander had one child out of wedlock and is on his third marriage. He met his current wife while she was working for him at city hall.
posted by humanfont at 6:06 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


I am Lewinsky's age, and it was utterly, painfully clear that she was so naively getting thrown under a bus driven by a woman named Tripp.

where is Bill Clinton's role in this?


wat?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:06 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


Are ordinary voters mostly even aware of the craziness in Nevada? My guess is that they're mostly not.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:06 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


J. Q. Public isn't paying attention to the 24-hour-election-coverage-cycle yet and won't be until at least September.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:06 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


Actually, I take that back partially -- I think a lot of typically nonpolitical people are side-eying (at the least) Donald Trump.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:08 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't follow, humanfont. Is your comment in response to something, or just a random fact dump?
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:08 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


FJT: "This is actually looking like a very, very good month for Donald Trump. And we don't have many months left on the calendar, so I really hope somebody other than Trump knows what they're doing at this point."

Don't forget: we haven't had even one Trump-Clinton debate yet. There are four presidential debates currently scheduled, with the first one in September.
posted by mhum at 6:11 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


What should HRC do if she still genuinely doesn't believe Bill's accusers? Seriously? What if she actually thinks that this is all inflated, because unlike the rest of us, she was much closer to the situation?

I have no doubt she knows/believes that he committed adultery and could've behaved badly. That horse is so beaten to death you couldn't even make glue out of it (not that people don't keep trying). But to the extent his actions were criminal? Violent? I'm not talking about what I believe -- what if HRC straight up doesn't believe it?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:11 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


To be fair, one of those is a VP debate.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:12 PM on May 19, 2016


I know I'm descending into fury, but maybe that's just how we women react.
posted by feste at 6:13 PM on May 19, 2016


what if HRC straight up doesn't believe it?

What does MF usually say about people who deny rape allegations?
posted by Seymour Zamboni at 6:17 PM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


And for the record: I'm not at all trying to defend Bill Clinton and his behavior with women. I just see it as entirely possible that HRC may still not buy anyone's story but his. What I sincerely don't believe is that she stayed with him after the Lewinsky scandal simply for political expediency. I think she still loves him, so I fully expect she might still have an actual problem believing the ugliest stuff.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:18 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


If his speeches were policy-focused, if he was attempted to address actual issues, then his claim that he's staying in order to influence policy would seem more legit.

The thing is, he is still giving those speeches, and with every local event, he's been making a real effort to connect his policies to the specific hardships that affect those people. It's just that he's also saying all the other stuff. It's my opinion that the higher ups in his campaign really don't know what they're doing. There's been a perception from the very beginning that he couldn't possibly win. Nearly a year ago, people were already talking about how him running would only weaken support for the clear and obvious winner. I think he can and should be pushing against that and making it clear that his proposals are serious, and that he was and is worth voting for as a serious candidate. I think he should be making a case for why you shouldn't assume it's all over because of Super Tuesday.

But I think he doesn't know how to do that because he's never had to. It's infinitely frustrating because he's been saying some really amazing things lately, but it's all getting dominated by the horse race aspect of this. He should know better, and he certainly knows that incendiary comments get more eyeballs than statements about the experience of being a blue collar worker, or the decline of historically Black colleges. It's a shame, and as much as I want to be mad at the media for making headlines out of one thing over the other, I also think he should have known better and that he brought this on himself. It's frustrating, and a disappointment, and I hate having to be on the defensive about supporting him, all because he's trying to play hardball instead of doing what made people like me want to support him in the first place.
posted by teponaztli at 6:19 PM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]


I can't not associate "beige" with a dumb conversation I had with someone 10-15 years ago. Every time I read it or hear it I start to hear Rob Thomas choking out a note.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:19 PM on May 19, 2016


I mean the really crazy/sad thing is that Trump's ex-wife accused *him* of rape after a botched scalp surgery thingie I don't even really know. But she wrote it all out very explicitly. So the hubris of a guy who likely raped his ex-wife going after the wife of a guy with sexual skeletons in the closets... I mean it's really bizarre. But Trump don't give a shit.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:26 PM on May 19, 2016 [23 favorites]


I've recently come to a certain realization. Let's say you have a voter for whom 2016 is not their first nor second, but let's say third presidential election cycle that they're eligible to vote in (i.e.: 2008's Obama vs. McCain would have been their first). That voter is under the age of thirty. Which means that they would have been at most 6 years old when Bill Clinton was elected and 13 years old when he was impeached. Unless this hypothetical voter was unusually precocious and interested in politics as a child, they would really not have had that much direct exposure to all of the 1990's "vast right-wing conspiracy" stuff -- Whitewater, who murdered Vince Foster, Arkansas state troopers running drugs out of Little Rock airport, etc. Never mind those even younger voters for whom these things were circulating before they were even born...

I do think this is an important piece of it. I am this age, though I am the precocious voter you describe who remembers watching the impeachment proceedings while in elementary school. There was, in fact, a vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons that was devoted to undermining the legitimacy of Bill's presidency. The fact that they eventually managed to come up with something that stuck after throwing everything else at the wall does not undermine that.

And that's not to say that Bill doesn't have a problem or that victims of sexual assault shouldn't be taken seriously. But people have been screaming "Clinton = Bad" for so long that we've all forgotten who started it or why we all still think it.
posted by zachlipton at 6:28 PM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]


The Trump anti-semitic brigade is out in force again.

This is utterly fucking terrifying.
posted by zachlipton at 6:28 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


I guess we've reached that part of the season where the Democrats en masse start freaking out about how they're going to blow it this time.
posted by dw at 6:30 PM on May 19, 2016 [19 favorites]


It's really amazingly annoying that the most substantive response to the well considered comment that sotonohito made was to criticize the "beige" metaphor, after people both explicitly and implicitly expressed complete shock that Bernie-or-bust is a thing.
posted by TypographicalError at 6:31 PM on May 19, 2016 [25 favorites]


A box... There has been plenty of talk in this thread and elsewhere about Bill and Hillary's marriage problems, why does the Sanders get a pass for his behavior?
posted by humanfont at 6:33 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


Metafilter obviously has an enlightened culture of believing rape reports until proven false but the reality is most of the world doesn't operate in that mode and that certainly wasn't the norm in the 90s.

Is there truth to the allegations against Bill? Quite possibly yes but there is absolutely no way that proof could ever be attained or else Starr would of found it. And for a lot of people there is still a default assumption of innocent until proven guilty even though that burden is undeniably biased against rape victims.

In contrast we have volumes of complete false conspiracy theories reflecting the right wing obsession with Bill and Hillary so I can totally understand why many people are unwilling to believe the allegations against Bill and Hillary.

The reality is that Trump is trying to bring up these allegations now to upset polling that pretty much guarantees a crushing loss in November.
posted by vuron at 6:33 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


What does MF usually say about people who deny rape allegations?

There are two options one has in responding to rape allegation. One is to support the idea that the accusation is true. The other is to say that there's a conspiracy against the assailant. Usually, the weight of probability is heavily in favor of the former, but in Bill's highly unusual case it's so clear that there are conspiracies against him that the situation is much harder to judge, especially given Broaddrick's claim that Hillary was essentially a co-conspirator in the rape, which I find hard to believe given her long record as a feminist.
posted by vathek at 6:35 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


I find the double-standards about politicians' behavior totally galling, humanfont, and I have no doubt that Bernie would have been disqualified from the get-go if he were a woman, but it's still kind of gross to go after someone for purely personal behavior that's their own business. I just wish women could have the same privileges that Bernie takes for granted.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:39 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]


If you think you can guess who does not participate in or enable abuse based on past history of apparently being a good person in public, I have some bad news for you.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:40 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


A box... There has been plenty of talk in this thread and elsewhere about Bill and Hillary's marriage problems, why does the Sanders get a pass for his behavior?

Mostly because he's not going to get the nomination.
posted by box at 6:40 PM on May 19, 2016


humanfont, are you actually saying that divorce and having a child out of wedlock should trouble us about our candidates? They seem to me to be very different from concerns over the appearance of enabling sexual abuse, but perhaps you think Bernie should address the nation about having a child out of wedlock? If you want to tell us how you feel, just tell us how you feel.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:41 PM on May 19, 2016 [28 favorites]


but in Bill's highly unusual case it's so clear that there are conspiracies against him that the situation is much harder to judge

I honestly think that pretty much everyone agrees about the basic facts surrounding the Monica Lewinsky case, and yet there was a campaign to discredit and smear her that ended up destroying the last couple decades of her life. Lewinsky herself has said that she was troubled by HRC's "impulse to blame the woman."

I would like to hear her address her role in these smear campaigns, even if it's just to say that she had nothing to fucking do with it.
posted by lalex at 6:42 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


posted by box at 6:40 PM on May 19

posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:41 PM on May 19


I can't wait to see what comes next.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:44 PM on May 19, 2016 [24 favorites]


So we're what? Blaming Hillary Clinton for the stuff Bill Clinton did now? Can we not? Please?

Let's just leave that sort of crap to Donald Trump and his supporters.

I don't think Hillary Clinton really needs to, or should, say anything at all about her husband's affairs. It has nothing at all to do with her candidacy.
posted by sotonohito at 6:45 PM on May 19, 2016 [28 favorites]


So we're what? Blaming Hillary Clinton for the stuff Bill Clinton did now? Can we not? Please?

No one has done this.
posted by lalex at 6:48 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sure. You're just concerned about her role in these smear campaigns, that's all.

Yes, that is my actual concern. Are you implying something else?
posted by lalex at 6:50 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


I would like to talk about the fact that I'm a little scared that Trump supporters are literally going to kill me, but apparently that's not as interesting as the Democrats' personal lives.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:51 PM on May 19, 2016 [55 favorites]


How about this: it's entirely possible HRC regrets how she reacted to her husband's affairs and/or abuse but since she chose to stay with him and due to the political and social reality, she can't say so. Consider this: a large portion of Americans are still prone to blaming the woman (for abuse, for getting raped, whatever.) There is no way HRC can talk specifically about cases very close to her because we don't allow politicians to admit they were wrong and this isn't a political hill worth climbing because most Americans won't give a damn about the nuances (they blame the women too!) We especially don't let women be wrong. She's damned by many if she doesn't "stand by her man" but damned by a much smaller number if she were to drop him. There's no room for her to say she's married to a human being who made mistakes but their partnership is worth keeping. Certainly there's no room for her to talk about it publicly without someone being upset. The reality is she can do a lot more for abuse victims by making sure that drummed up sex scandals get as little attention as possible. And yes I say drummed up because the reality is the vast majority of Americans only have heard about it or care about Bill Clinton's because it's a convenient way to demonize him (and her). It's only coming up now because Trump said something awful. Do we really believe he cares an iota for rape victims from the 90s?
posted by R343L at 6:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [37 favorites]


I am implying that this will never happen. HRC is not going to confess. Don't you get that there is literally nothing she can say about it if she wants to be elected? Anything she says only fodder for her enemies.
posted by feste at 6:55 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's really amazingly annoying that the most substantive response to the well considered comment that sotonohito made was to criticize the "beige" metaphor, after people both explicitly and implicitly expressed complete shock that Bernie-or-bust is a thing.

The comment has been made before, and has been addressed many times before. This is the ninth election thread and there are thousands of comments in each one. Believe me, the fact that nobody is tooling out yet another in-depth response to the Beige Dictatorship and whatever does not mean nobody has ever tooled out a response to those arguments. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have become weary of writing out the same responses to the same arguments that are made by the same people every few hundred comments or so.
posted by schroedinger at 6:56 PM on May 19, 2016 [18 favorites]


Or what R343L said much more eloquently.
posted by feste at 6:58 PM on May 19, 2016


I was always going to support the Democratic nominee, whoever that was. (I said in an early thread I would vote for a Satan/sentient Ebola virus ticket if I were reasonably confident they'd support the Democratic party platform and keep the GOP out of the White House.) But I was hoping the nominee would be Sanders, and even when it was clear that wasn't going to happen, I still had a lot of respect for him. And I dismissed the Bernie Bro problems and some of the nasty campaigning as just a minority of jerks any campaign picks up along the way. Until yesterday. TPM isn't as good as it used to be, but I still have confidence in Josh Marshall's information, and if he's convinced the nasty tenor that the Sanders campaign has taken recently is directly attributable to Bernie, then I'm out. Not that it matters, because Clinton has it all but sewn up, but I hate it that he's closing the campaign in a way that turns off reasonable supporters and potentially damages the party. I'm really disappointed, because there is a lot to like about Sanders' positions, and he started the campaign in a really hopeful, honorable way. But that's not how he's ending it, and endings count.

To be clear, I don't think he needs to drop out. Campaign in every state. Get your message out. But do it in a way that makes it clear who the real danger is--and it's not Clinton and the DNC.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:59 PM on May 19, 2016 [36 favorites]


I can't speak for anyone else, but I have become weary of writing out the same responses to the same arguments that are made by the same people every few hundred comments or so.

That goes both ways, too. At this point I've stopped bothering to answer when people ask "why do you support Sanders?" because it's guaranteed that it'll turn into the exact same conversation I've been having with people for the past year. "But have you considered..." Yes, yes I have, thank you.
posted by teponaztli at 7:00 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


Bill's a creep and we'll never know exactly how creepy. But I'm pretty sure Hillary, as the cheated-upon, as one of the victims of his creepery. And she has lived in the shadow of this for just as long as Monica Lewinsky. And her reputation and personal life have been put out there for judgement and slurs and smears too. And it sucks for her too.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:01 PM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]


Of all the shitty things that happened in regards to Lewinsky, including her boss's bad behavior, the backstabbing by a supposed friend and confidante, the ridiculous inquisition she handled from the special prosecutor, the media bullying, etc it seems that Hillary Clinton's response of blaming the other woman is while an unfair and mean response is also a totally human one especially considering her own history of being relentlessly attacked.

I think most of us would like to imagine we would be better more compassionate humans in similar circumstances but I personally don't know that I wouldn't have made the same mistakes. The reality is that I try to be compassionate to both Monica and Hillary knowing that both suffered based upon the failures of other people.
posted by vuron at 7:04 PM on May 19, 2016 [29 favorites]


That goes both ways, too. At this point I've stopped bothering to answer when people ask "why do you support Sanders?" because it's guaranteed that it'll turn into the exact same conversation I've been having with people for the past year. "But have you considered..." Yes, yes I have, thank you.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone in these threads (or at least the past few threads) has questioned why someone supports Sanders. I believe any questions have been directed towards the "Bernie or Bust" crowd, but I feel that's a different scenario.

To be clear, I don't think he needs to drop out. Campaign in every state. Get your message out. But do it in a way that makes it clear who the real danger is--and it's not Clinton and the DNC.


This is my feeling about Sanders, and I think this is why he is seeing such a backlash after Nevada. Prior to that one could still make the argument he was not the originator of the nastiness, but his failure to condemn his supporters' behavior at the caucus and his ramping up of attacks on the DNC/Clinton tears away any pretense.
posted by schroedinger at 7:04 PM on May 19, 2016 [11 favorites]


Bernie Sanders 2016: Noise Band: "Hello my name is Bernie Sanders ... for my entire political career I've worked to create an economy that's worked for everybody and not just billionaires. I am also in a fucked up noise band called Frog Piss."
posted by mcmile at 7:05 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


It's really amazingly annoying that the most substantive response to the well considered comment that sotonohito made was to criticize the "beige" metaphor, after people both explicitly and implicitly expressed complete shock that Bernie-or-bust is a thing.

To an extent, I agree, but I think some of the reaction comes from people who were following the previous election thread, which had a lot of beige talk too toward the end. It's frankly an annoying phrase (makes me think of the Neutrals from Futurama to be honest) and it's not one that starts sounding any better the more you hear it.

That said, I also think the "beige dictatorship" theory ignores the very real consequences that these elections actually have on actual people, some of them are here in this thread. To argue that Clinton is just a bland corporate suit pushing unwanted mediocre policies while maintaining the status quo (and I apologize if that sounds like I'm setting up a strawman, but that's basically how I understand the beige dictatorship essay) is to be in the privileged position of ignoring the people who have their basic human rights at stake in this election.

To give just a few examples, we're talking about millions of immigrants currently shielded from deportation by executive actions that could be repealed in an instant, 1.6 billion Muslims around the world that Trump would ban on the basis of their religion, who know how many Hispanic and Muslim Americans who feel threatened to be at home in their own country right now, LGBT people whose rights have been under attack, women who would like there to be some remotely accessible way to get an abortion, or Jews who are now discovering that criticizing the Republican nominee results in neo-Nazis coming out the woodwork to attack you. To argue that we're stuck in a meaningless beige dictatorship means that getting health insurance for millions of Americans meant nothing or that it wasn't important to have an administration that (yes, finally) fought with us for marriage equality, and now trans equality, rather than standing in the way. To embrace the beige dictatorship means that raising the minimum wage (however much you raise it) and seeking to make college more affordable (however you do that) are equally preferable policies to another massive tax cut for the rich with the intent of hacking the federal government to pieces.

The #1 thing we're fighting for right now is to not undo essentially all the progress we've made. That's supremely frustrating, yes, but it's where we are. Of course I want more, and it's obvious that this kind of fight to maintain the status quo serves entrenched powerful interests, who by definition, benefit from the status quo, more than anyone else, but that's where we are right now. To an awful lot of people, the issues I talked about above, among others, are starkly black and white issues and are not in any way beige. And to dismiss Clinton as simply beige (even while recognizing the greater evil and without being a Bernie or Buster) is to ignore their voices.
posted by zachlipton at 7:05 PM on May 19, 2016 [51 favorites]


So I just realized that a fascinating side-effect of Trump's anti-semitic brigade is that a bunch of white dudes are getting a taste of the kind of social media abuse that women have been subject to for a long time. I wonder if and how that's going to change discussions of things like GamerGate.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:05 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


askmefi would have told Hillary emphatically to DTMFA with each successive reveal.
posted by futz at 7:07 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


I saw a Bernie-or-Buster once! 1951, back in Sequoia National Park. Had a foot on him, thirty-seven inches, heel to toe. Made a sound I would not want to hear twice in my life.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:15 PM on May 19, 2016 [17 favorites]


Hillary didn't sexually assault anyone. I'm not seeing ANY evidence she abetted Bill. She is married to him, but she is her own person. The efforts she has made to support women are huge and awesome. She is on track to break the highest glass ceiling in the USA this year

Meanwhile she will shortly face a hateful sexist racist bully who can't wait to be best friends with dome of the world's worst dictators and trash our alliances and roll back every progressive step via the Supreme Court appointments the next President will surely have.

We need to unite. We need to look hard at TRUMP and the party now embracing him. A hell of a lot is at stake.
posted by bearwife at 7:17 PM on May 19, 2016 [37 favorites]


From the RS link h-dogg posted at the start,

Donald Trump, unhinged pig

That is all.
I'm petebest and I approve this message.
posted by petebest at 7:19 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've haven't been paying attention to the "Hillary is terrible because her husband cheated on her" stuff because, well who gives a shit. But, are people mad at her because of how she felt and about and treated Lewinsky?

I'm a dude, but if my wife cheated on me, the absolutely last person's feelings I'd be worried about would be the other man who fucked my wife.
posted by sideshow at 7:21 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm a dude, but if my wife cheated on me, the absolutely last person's feelings I'd be worried about would be the other man who fucked my wife.

I mean, with all due respect, there are all sorts of gender implications and power issues that don't look the same when you switch roles.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 PM on May 19, 2016 [20 favorites]


Yeah the biege dictatorship bullshit is a false narrative heavily promoted by really privileged people mainly because they fell like they should have increased access to power because why not they are really smart and work hard. So it becomes easy to imagine a vast conspiracy of bankers and billionaires.

Of course at the same time it's okay to dismiss the votes of minorities because they are ignorant idiots.

Yes corporate and monied interests have excessive influence and both parties are heavily staffed by technocrats but the data increasingly shows that these monied interests are increasingly negating each other because money doesn't always translate to people power.

Furthermore it seems like 90 of the hardcore support for both Sanders and Trump seem to be buying into a repackaging of the current great man and disruptor narrative that is so popular among Silicon Valley douchebros. I actually wouldn't be shocked if at some point in time we find that a lot of the social media power driving both candidates has been provided by some very smart and motivated programmers.

But like so many SV disruption specialists it seems both Sanders and Trump are remarkable in having the vaguest idea of how to implement their policies when they disrupt Washington.
posted by vuron at 7:24 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


I'm a dude, but if my wife cheated on me, the absolutely last person's feelings I'd be worried about would be the other man who fucked my wife.

I think it depends on whether you see the Lewinsky affair as "the other woman who fucked my husband" or "a sexual predator who used a vast power and maturity imbalance to victimize a very young woman who was subsequently the target of a vicious smear campaign".
posted by lalex at 7:27 PM on May 19, 2016 [15 favorites]


I think we should stop trying to overturn Citizen's United. The money cancels out and doesn't translate to people power and rich interests working together to maintain power is imaginary and made up by people I think are douchebags.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:28 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


Rashomon taught me that the Truth of a narrative largely depends on your position within the events forming the plot points of that.narrative. I have no doubt that Hillary has a different perspective than Monica or that of a third party media consumer.

DrinkyDie- Citizens United does need to be reversed but this election has shown that if you have 5 or more Republican billionaires each backing a different candidate chances are none of them will actually be the nominee.

CU has a massive impact on down ballot elections but the data seems to be showing that Super PAC money has a poor return on investment for the presidential election at least. And at least for most of these billionaires they don't get rich betting on long shots with poor odds.
posted by vuron at 7:38 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton is for overturning Citizen's United. She said it would be her metric in appointing Supreme Court nominees.
posted by feste at 7:38 PM on May 19, 2016 [12 favorites]


"what happened in Nevada is a pretty clear signal that Sanders supporters aren't welcome in the local party operations."

So, the thing is, all local party representatives are elected from registered Democrats in their given counties. In California, we're voting on committee members as part of the primary. It's those representatives and captains that eventually end up setting the caucus and election rules through the state party (very simplified). If you don't think that the rules set up by the state party are fair, you can run in your local precinct elections, convince a handful of people to vote for you, then lobby your fellow party members to change the rules. If you get the votes, you win.

Most of the Sanders supporters in Nevada had just as much opportunity as anyone else to set the rules for delegates, but they didn't. If they want to fix that so that more progressive candidates have a better shot in the future, they can participate in the process. That the current Nevada state party may not want them there is kind of immaterial — they have to convince a majority of voters or accept that a majority of their fellow party members prefer another vision.

I can get not being familiar with this stuff, as it's a bureaucratic morass in a lot of ways, but that highlights the general perception of Sanders voters as political novices who confuse the righteousness of their views with prevailing in a process. Don't throw chairs — organize!
posted by klangklangston at 7:38 PM on May 19, 2016 [19 favorites]


They didn't throw chairs did they?
posted by futz at 7:43 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think we should stop trying to overturn Citizen's United. The money cancels out and doesn't translate to people power and rich interests working together to maintain power is imaginary and made up by people I think are douchebags.

I don't think it's just as simple as "the money cancels out." It may well cancel out when it comes to this candidate vs that candidate (see also: Jeb!), but it really doesn't when it comes to spreading FUD to maintain the status quo (which inherently benefits the people with money and power) vs advocating for change.

But there are also inherent free speech problems with preventing wealthy and corporate interests from spreading whatever messages they think will help their agendas. The only real solutions I've got are a better press that's capable of exposing and refuting lies and a more educated citizenry that's capable of critical thinking. I'm not holding my breath.

To me, the real problem is that Citizen's United undermines any sort of future campaign finance reform effort, because what's the point of contribution limits if every campaign turns into a just-barely-legally-coordinated multi-billion-dollar effort?
posted by zachlipton at 7:44 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm not seeing ANY evidence she abetted Bill.

I don't think she abetted Bill. I am concerned about the role she played in attacking women who came forward with allegations of sexual violence. There is evidence that she did indeed do so in this one article* from three separate people: Her close friend Diane D. Blair, former Clinton aide George Stephanopolous, and biographer Carl Bernstein.

I'm sure someone will come along and inform me that these three people don't fit into whatever wafer-thin ideological mold deemed necessary to be taken seriously.

But these are credible, non-crackpot people and if Trump is going to keep riding this horse, and he will, then I think these issues should be addressed. It's the right thing to do.

* tl;dr: "Mrs. Clinton undertook an “aggressive, explicit direction of the campaign to discredit” Ms. Flowers, according to an exhaustive biography of Mrs. Clinton, “A Woman in Charge,” by Carl Bernstein."

"“We have to destroy her story,” Mrs. Clinton said in 1991 of Connie Hamzy, one of the first women to come forward during her husband’s first presidential campaign, according to George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton administration aide"

"Mrs. Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who had an affair with the 42nd president, as a “narcissistic loony toon,” according to one of her closest confidantes, Diane D. Blair, whose diaries were released to the University of Arkansas after her death in 2000."

posted by lalex at 7:44 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am implying that this will never happen. HRC is not going to confess. Don't you get that there is literally nothing she can say about it if she wants to be elected? Anything she says only fodder for her enemies.

Hopefully the best brains (and hearts) in her campaign are furiously working on this as we speak, because it will be an issue. Tactic #1 in the Karl Rove playbook is attacking the person's biggest strength, which is Hillary's support among women. There might be something she could say along the lines of

"Finding out that my husband violated the trust of our marriage is the most painful thing I've gone through in my life, and many women understand what that's like. We do our best to stay classy and compassionate, even toward the other women but it's REALLY FUCKING HARD. (tears) I'm sorry. I... You ... You can't imagine how much I wish none of this happened, there's a million things I could have done differently inside and outside of my relationship with Bill before and after these affairs. But we can't always choose how life turns out, and we just do the best we can. We're human and we do our best. My heart goes out to every woman who has had to deal with this, including my opponent's wives, and that is all I have to say on the subject."
posted by msalt at 7:47 PM on May 19, 2016 [10 favorites]


Citizens United does need to be reversed but this election has shown that if you have 5 or more Republican billionaires each backing a different candidate chances are none of them will actually be the nominee

This election also showed a people funded candidate losing hard to a candidate who fully embraced the post-Citizens United reality in their fundraising approach. That candidate is also going to be President, in part on the back of that fundraising. The advantage the super pac money gave Clinton was not neutralized.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:48 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obama gave his "A More Perfect Union" speech on March 18 (much earlier than I remember). The Democratic nominee was going to win anyway, but that speech probably won him the election. He took a sleazy political attack and turned it into an opportunity to talk about race in America. It checked the two major boxes for his candidacy: he acknowledged the role that race was going to play in the election and it showed how he would handle political controversy (answer: pretty brilliantly). He addressed the role of racism in the campaign early and neutralized it before it could turn into a conflagration later in the season.

I think Clinton has a similar opportunity with the accusations about her husband and how she deal with his accusers. Use it as a jumping off point to talk about sexism in this country. Talk about the awful gender imbalances in play. The things Wright said are inexcusable, and some of her husband's actions were, too. But her candidacy is about improving our country so that the system itself makes their actions less likely in the future. There's no un-saying what Wright said and no un-doing what Bill did, but the right president in the White House can move the country forward on the systematic problems that made such things possible in the first place.

I don't know whether Clinton has it in her to give a speech like Obama's - few do. But it seems like an opportunity to put that particular line of attack behind her.
posted by one_bean at 7:48 PM on May 19, 2016 [25 favorites]


They didn't throw chairs did they?

Reported as yes, but now unconfirmed.
posted by klangklangston at 7:48 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


zachlipton I can see where you're coming from here, and I don't actually disagree and I'm sorry if I sounded dismissive or indifferent to the people who are hurt by current policy or will be hurt by Republicans in office. The choice this time, between Trump and Clinton is quite stark. More of the same vs. Chaotic Evil, and I think the correct choice there is self evident.

I've said before and in other threads that simply for the Supreme Court voting anything but Democratic this time around is damaging to a lot of people.

And for what it's worth, I do see the Democratic party as being vastly superior to the Republicans in a number of essential and critical areas, I'm not out here claiming that they're all the same.

But, I also think that there are deep, dangerous, structural problems with the US economy and society and that however much better it is to have Clinton (and what I'd argue is largely a continuation of the policies and positions of the Obama presidency) than Trump, that still leaves the massive, dangerous, structural problems in the USA essentially unaddressed because I don't think Clinton, or Obama, or really any mainline national level Democratic politician is capable of even acknowledging those deep structural problems. Their livelihood, their political careers, and all the people they care about are contingent on them pretending that the deep structural problems are simply not there and that what the USA needs, at absolute most, is some minor tinkering.

I do genuinely think that Clinton represents, basically, more of the same where "the same" is triangulating, centrist, and basically well intentioned but operating from a worldview and set of priorities found among the elites and largely unaware of, if not aggressively indifferent to, the problems faced by most people.

This concerns me both because I'd like to see the deep structural problems addressed [1], and because I fear that when they are left unaddressed it vastly increased the odds of a populist right uprising which I believe will inevitably result in a Fascist or quasi-Fascist state.

Donald Trump didn't just appear out of nowhere. He exists as a political force only because a sizable number of American voters are harmed by the deep structural problems and see him as the only person who is addressing them.

And, depressingly, he is. He's addressing the deep structural problems with bigotry and lies, but the fact that he's acknowledging them (and promising simple, cheap, solutions that perfectly match the prejudices of his voters) is the basis of his success. I don't think it'll be enough this time, but the simmering resentment that he's tapped into won't vanish when (please) Clinton wins the 2016 elections.

Thus the Beige Dictatorship talk. Because from my POV she is, due to her birth, her upbringing, her current connections, friends, family, and status, fundamentally unable to even admit the problems exist. The billionaire class **CAN'T** admit that there are deep structural problems, because if they do then their wealth is in danger, and she's part of that billionaire class.

So yes, she'll help and is a good person for the stuff that doesn't threaten the core interests of the billionaire class (their money). On those issues she'll be great. GLBT issues, yup. Pro-Choice issues? She's our candidate. Even to an extent (but only to an extent) healthcare and minimum wage. She's from the smart billionaire faction and knows perfectly well that a sick or starving worker is not a productive worker, and is also likely a basically compassionate person who actually gives a shit about her fellow human beings. All unlike Donald Trump who is almost certainly a genuine sociopath or narcissistic and will burn the country just to see what happens, or Mitt Romney who (regardless of personal feelings) is beholden to theocrats who hate women and want to make them suffer, and who frankly doesn't care of the peasants starve or not because he's too short sighted to realize the danger that sort of thinking represents.

I don't at all try to pretend that the Republicans and Democrats are identical or that one isn't vastly preferable to the other.

But I do think that neither is willing or capable of acknowledging a huge set of problems we face, and that's where the Beige Dictatorship talk comes from.

When it comes to the basic existence and operation of corporate America, the basic way banks exist and do business, the basic question of whether or not the billionaire class should be able to parasite out all the money, Clinton, Romney, Junior, Obama, etc really are on essentially the same side. They all agree that the status quo on corporations, banks, and billionaires is basically ok and that, at most, what is needful is a bit of tinkering around the edges. And none will ever, under any circumstances, take even the slightest action that could seriously endanger the status quo for those organizations and people.

Which is where the Trump supporters actually do have the truth on their side. Trump will disrupt the status quo for bankers, business, and billionaires. He'll do so in harmful and dangerous ways, he'll do so to enrich his friends and ruin his enemies, and he'll have not the slightest concern for the people who elected him; but he will change the status quo.

And to the bigots who are hurting that looks like a good deal, and will continue to look like a good deal as long as the billionaire parasite class is taking all the money and leaving them with nothing. Trump is just the first, and we're incredibly lucky that he's such an incompetent buffoon. Can you imagine how bad it will be when a competent politician starts tapping into that rising tide of right wing populism?

Either we start addressing the problems of banks, billionaires, and business, or we will see repeats of Trumplike politicians, all with increasing success, in all the future elections, until finally they win.

It isn't enough to stop Trump now. That's necessary, but not sufficient. We, and by we I mean the Democratic party and the Democratic voters, must end the conditions that allow right wing populist politicians to rise. And that's going to mean taking a lot of money way from billionaires, breaking up a shit ton of banks and business, all of which are unthinkable to the Democratic establishment right now.

I'll acknowledge that the term Beige Dictatorship is apparently a bad term to use. I thought it was a very convenient shorthand, but obviously not. So I'm retiring it. But I think what I meant by it, and the concerns I have about the establishment politicians (of all parties, but I focus on the Democrats because I view the Republicans as a total lost cause), are valid.

[1] Note that I don't expect any candidate to actually be able to solve the deep structural problems on their own, I'm well aware that the powers of the Presidency basically are the veto and the bully pulpit. But simply having someone even honestly talking about the real problems would be a start, and if they were willing to start aggressively working to get people who wanted to acknowledge and solve the problems elected to Congress then so much the better.
posted by sotonohito at 7:51 PM on May 19, 2016 [47 favorites]


Please. Enlighten me.

Well, I guess I'd start by pointing out that his most popular proposals are deporting 11 million people and temporarily banning Muslims from entering the United States.
posted by FJT at 7:52 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


Re lalex's comment above: IIRC, those three specific women didn't make claims of sexual violence. Flowers talked about an affair, Hamzy claimed that she and Bill tried (and failed) to find a place to have sex, and I can't remember any violence associated with Lewinsky's experience with the president. So those quotes from HRC are about women who had or tried to have consensual sex with her husband (keeping in mind that Lewinsky was young and naive and her boss should have kept his damn hands off her).

I don't know what to think about Broaddrick. I'll have to dig into that story.
posted by maudlin at 7:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


A Box: Bernie Sanders' relationship with Jane Sanders is also problematic. They began dating around the time he became Mayor. It's not entirely clearly whether he started dating one of his subordinates or (as I've read), he found her a job in city government because they were already dating (which is worse).

But neither one is really OK. And it was a continuing pattern -- it wasn't illegal AFAIK for him to hire Jane and her daughter to work on his reelection campaigns in 2000, 2002 and 2004 and pay them $100,000 combined, but it's certainly skeevy and almost never done for that reason.
posted by msalt at 7:59 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


[Please refresh and don't respond to deleted comments. Thanks. ]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:59 PM on May 19, 2016


Trump will disrupt the status quo for bankers, business, and billionaires. He'll do so in harmful and dangerous ways, he'll do so to enrich his friends and ruin his enemies, and he'll have not the slightest concern for the people who elected him; but he will change the status quo.

What makes you think this? In what ways will Trump disrupt the status quo, save to hand power to people who are slightly dumber and more unbalanced than they were in the past? Do you think people who are currently rich will be any less rich after Trump, or people who are currently poor will be any less poor? The only thing Trump offers is the opportunity for people who got their pockets lined at the periphery to get their pockets lined directly. And economic collapse. I don't consider any of those to be a change in the status quo, because under Trump there is no risk that the rich White people in power will be any less rich or any less powerful.
posted by schroedinger at 8:01 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]


Drink Die- The Clinton Super PACs were basically absent during the nomination process (mainly to reserve cash for the General Election) mainly because except for about a two week period following NH and before SC he could've seriously damaged her.

But the reality is that Sanders has been dramatically raising more than Clinton in terms of hard money contributions and has typically been spending dramatically more than her in virtually every state he has actively campaigned in.

Of course that was in order to fight a better organized opponent with massive name recognition and an organization more than 8 years in development so I can understand why he had to pay premium prices for his media buys and campaign staff but the simple fact of the matter is that almost all of the Clinton dark money (and I admit there is a significant amount) is still in treasure vaults waiting for the General election.

Trump is of course rapidly pivoting from being a "self-funded" candidate to someone desperately looking for Super PAC money for the GE but it's unclear who besides Adelson is going all in on Trump. And let's be clear Adelson is really mainly a single issue donor.

Most of the biggest Republican dark money donors seem to be focusing more on playing defense in the house and Senate with the understanding Trump is an awful candidate but that 4 more years of congressional gridlock basically reaffirms the status quo.

That's the thing that drives me insane about the idea that the beige dictators are pushing a status quo result because honestly if you want status quo all you need to do is make sure that there is no consensus because doing nothing inherently supports the status quo.

Centrist democrats are often accused of being pro-status quo when the reality is that they typically push incremental change rather than sweeping changes but incrementalism can still be extremely powerful in the lives of millions of Americans- evidence being the last 7+ years of Obama.
posted by vuron at 8:01 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


That's the thing that drives me insane about the idea that the beige dictators are pushing a status quo result because honestly if you want status quo all you need to do is make sure that there is no consensus because doing nothing inherently supports the status quo.

But what better way to insure there is no consensus than to nominate the two most disliked candidates in history? It's funny because I think we agree on most facts but are coming to very different conclusions about where to direct our fear because of those facts.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:05 PM on May 19, 2016


schroedinger I don't think Trump will disrupt the status quo in any way that is remotely beneficial to his voters or much of anyone else. But he's promising to embroil the US in a trade war against basically the entire planet, encourage nuclear proliferation in Europe and South East Asia, unilaterally end US treaty obligations to various long time allies, and so on.

I certainly don't think he'll help anyone but white men, and only a tiny sliver of white men who properly suck up to him.

But I do imagine that he'd go after various businesses, banks, and billionaires who slighted him. Or are more successful than him. Or who he just plain doesn't like for his own irrational reasons.

I don't think this will be even slightly beneficial, I think it'll be an unmitigated disaster.

But changing the status quo for the worse is still changing it. I don't want it to happen, and I'm not an advocate of all changes to the status quo. I vastly prefer the current status quo to whatever Trump would do. But if he got his way he'd produce a vastly changed America.
posted by sotonohito at 8:07 PM on May 19, 2016


Ruin is change, right?
posted by sotonohito at 8:08 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


Reince Priebus minus the vowels is 'RNC PR BS'.
posted by adept256 at 8:10 PM on May 19, 2016 [39 favorites]


Which anagrams to CPR BS RN. Which is basically Priebus's job. Bringing back from the dead a bullshit Republican nomination.
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:14 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's only coming up now because Trump said something awful. Do we really believe he cares an iota for rape victims from the 90s?

In the next few months, Trump will say a lot of things. Some fraction will be really appealing to those on the left, because they will be left policies or will capture far left sentiments. It’s important to focus on the fact that he is the embodiment of a random number generator, not that the random number generator has produced a policy you care about.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:18 PM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


As far as I can tell the majority of Democrats seem to like Clinton a lot. She is leading the vote total by a significant margin especially in states with a closed Democratic primary.

Yes she's deeply unpopular among Republican core voters but honestly these are the same voters that basically left Cruz and Trump as the last idiots standing so honestly fuck them.

So the question mark is whether Clinton's perceived weakness among Independents will cost her the election or if their widespread support of Sanders was more based on a preference for Sanders rather than an antipathy towards Clinton and her policies.

Obviously most Sanders supporters will point to Clinton's perceived weakness among independents as a reason why Sanders should be the nominee with the assumption that 95% of registered Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate either way. Sanders doing better among independents is "proof" that he'll do even better than Obama 2012 in most states.

However unfortunately while the assumption that most Democrats would vote for Sanders in November regardless it isn't a guarantee that every Sanders primary voter would vote for Sanders in November. Indeed in a decent number of states that he's won there has been a major cross-over effect in the primary which is quite likely to be reversed in the GE.

Furthermore the central conceit is that the super delegates should go with the better general election candidate based rather than respecting the will of the primary and caucus goers to this point. The logical faults and let's be perfectly honest the complete disregard of Sanders previous rhetoric concerning the super delegates just makes this new Sanders campaign position seem delusional and/or desperate and unprincipled.

Considering that Sanders has basically wrapped himself in the mantle of being a principled candidate willing to tilt at windmills to protect the little guy the seeming lack of principle regarding the super delegates undermines his very message in a way that Clinton's appeal to super delegates in 2008 really didn't because the reality is that she never wrapped herself up in so much "principled man" rhetoric in 2008.
posted by vuron at 8:19 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


While nothing will ever beat Press Secretary Larry Speakes, but I have learned that there's more value in Reince Priebus' name than I'd ever have thought. Yay metafilter!
posted by sotonohito at 8:19 PM on May 19, 2016


Obligatory.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 8:22 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ruin is change, right?

Chaos is a ladder!
posted by Justinian at 8:24 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


Lots of people duped by the chair throwing story when numerous delegates at the convention said it was false. Snopes. I believe that most of the reporting on that event is wrong and I'd like to know how it spread so far without actual evidence. There is tons of video. Did ANYONE watch it? But too late. The damage is done.
posted by futz at 8:26 PM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]


My money is still on Clinton picking a white, straight, older, Southern guy. -- sotonohito

Absolutely. After all, the last time she did that, she ended up in the White House.
posted by rokusan at 8:26 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


sotonohito: I don't think you're wrong about structural problems. Part of the problem is that the problems are, well, structural, so it's inherently difficult to define them and proscribe solutions.

But I guess what it comes down to for me is a doubt that Sanders could have brought about structural change in the way you propose. Sanders has long talked about his "revolution" and the need for his backers to stay with him after he's elected to fight for these policies. But the corpus of Sanders' proposals amount to something more revolutionary than the New Deal, which is something we only got amid the incredibly devastating ruin of the Depression (a situation that was far worse than any we're in now) and some serious battles (court packing anyone?). And he wants to do this in a climate that is far more hostile to change, and with years of built-in hostility to anything resembling "socialism," without the support of the legislature, the unions, or the party rank-and-file. Structural change of the sort you describe is hard enough, because it involves dismantling the interests of powerful people, people who, by definition, have power to stop you. It's a heck of a lot harder when you haven't built up a structure to support it.

So from that perspective, with the idea that I generally liked Sanders and what he was proposing, but didn't think he could sell it, my choice really boils down to effectiveness. For, I'm not convinced that Sanders could actually do anything about a "billionaire class" sitting in that chair. To you, class seems to matter more. But from my perspective, it boils down to "we're lucky to get 10% of what we want, so I want the person I think will be most effective at getting anything," and that's Clinton right now. Which class or team someone plays for is less important to me right now than what we can actually get done.

In short, and as you recognize, with both Sanders and Trump, I'm highly skeptical of anyone who promises to come in as President and make such significant changes against the interests of powerful people who prefer the status quo.
posted by zachlipton at 8:29 PM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]


I believe that most of the reporting on that event is wrong and I'd like to know how it spread so far without actual evidence.

Did you see how it spread around here? Folks repeated it because they wanted it to be true.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 8:29 PM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]


I wanted to talk about it but dreaded the pile on and still do.
posted by futz at 8:31 PM on May 19, 2016 [10 favorites]


I truly believe that the coverage of what happened in Nevada has been a hit job. In the previous post the articles that were cited as evidence were written by HRC supporters in a GYOB fashion. Very sparse on verifiable facts with tons of video evidence to the contrary. I could talk about this for days but I don't think that it would be productive here. I truly hope that there is a postmortem on how this primary was covered by the media. I am not in conspiracy mode but I believe that there are problems ahead for Hillary, the DNC, and media outlets. Per usual there will be a documentary that comes out in a few years when all the chuckleheads feel safe enough to come out of the woodwork to yuk it up about how they subverted democracy or whatever. Yeah, I know politics is dirty and all that Jazz but this time it really feels like there is some THERE THERE. There will be revelations about Bernie's campaign too for sure. I am a believer in where there is smoke there is fire and Hillary's whole political career has been surrounded by smoke. It can't ALL be a vast right wing conspiracy. She is also responsible for all her own flip flops...oops, I mean evolutions.
posted by futz at 8:32 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]




I am certainly willing to accept the idea that no chairs were thrown (though at least one guy clearly picked up a chair as if to throw it before other supporters physically intervened), but there was clearly a ton of anger, yelling, disrupting Boxer's speech, harassment and death threats against the state party chair, her job, and her grandson, etc... The chair really doesn't matter.

The end result of the Nevada convention is a slate of delegates that is more-or-less proportional to the actual caucus vote in Nevada (as a caucus, that's a vote that disenfranchises large numbers of voters, but that's a different problem that should also be addressed). If a couple of delegates really matter, have them; the final result will be the same.
posted by zachlipton at 8:38 PM on May 19, 2016 [19 favorites]


Like wise if a couple delegates didn't matter so much why did the HRC folks fight so hard to get them?
posted by futz at 8:41 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


It is all so weird.
posted by futz at 8:41 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why would the Cllnton folks choose now of all times to "trump" up a anti-bernie narrative? The reality is that he's already a spent force and Clinton has already moved on to GE mode and has been in effect ignoring the increasingly erratic punches that the Sanders campaign has been trying to throw in recent weeks. There is absolutely nothing that is going to change the nomination math now and the likelihood of superdelegates actually spurning her in any great numbers seems ludicrous.

So what possible gain does she have in promoting an anti-Bernie narrative right now? He's not going to be the nominee and his ability to jam through major no-go platform planks during the convention seem extremely limited.

Muzzling hims might be a motive but it seems like casting him as the kooky college professor that has lost control over his classroom of young student activists limits his potential as a future Clinton campaign surrogate. So either there has been an acceptance that Sanders will simply not endorse Clinton and it's time to make him seem like an idiot or this seems counterproductive.
posted by vuron at 8:42 PM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


Exactly. Also, how did 50 people become delegates if they weren't eligible? It's really weird. They already won and now they are pissing off voters they probably need. I don't see what the Democratic Party thinks it is gaining by pushing away Bernie voters.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:43 PM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


But the silence from her camp and many other quarters regarding the many, multiple accusations of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape really saddens and upsets me and I'm not really sure what to do with those feelings.

I agree 100% that Hillary should address this, ideally as part of a larger speech riffing on the long fight against structural sexism and misogyny, sexual harassment in the workplace, the vilification of women for behavior it takes two to engage in, the disbelief when women talk about discrimination, harassment, and rape. Not because it is fair to demand that of her (as opposed to Bill), but because IT IS NOT GOING AWAY no matter how many times the Clintons try to get it to. It's only May and Trump is already accusing Bill Clinton of rape, straight up.

Part of selling your candidacy is telling a coherent story about who you are to the voters. There are lots of things wide swaths of voters buy about Hillary - that she is smart, canny, ambitious, hardworking, meticulous, deeply invested in the equality of women; they know her history of feminism and the potential that she would be the first woman president. But they also know her husband, at the bare minimum, had an affair with a thirty years younger, very subordinate intern while he was one of the most powerful men in the universe and in his mid-fifties and then very publicly lied about it and dragged her name and life through a mud so thick Monica's still stuck in it; and they think they know that Hillary had something to do with the smearing of the numerous other women who came forward again and again ("bimbo eruptions") to say her husband engaged in inappropriate behavior up to and including rape. For many people, this part of her story does not square.

Is it fair to demand that she explain her choices around her husband's ridiculously poor behavior, when she is interviewing for a job? No. But that doesn't mean she can just ignore the question and everyone will go "oh okay." She needs a damn good answer to it. She needs to somehow use this question to segue into her version of Obama's speech on race. But her choices so far, including failure to address this question and making Bill a significant part of her campaign and her promises for Bill's role once she's in office indicate to me that she is not willing to go there. I wonder whether this is an "elephant in the room" kind of topic on the campaign - something staffers are afraid to talk about candidly with her.
posted by sallybrown at 8:44 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]


Like wise if a couple delegates didn't matter so much why did the HRC folks fight so hard to get them?

But this goes the other way: if a couple of delegates didn’t matter so much, why did Sanders’ supporters get so riled up about their rule violations. It’s really weird.

These are fraught situations all around.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:45 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's only May and Trump is already accusing Bill Clinton of rape, straight up.

Trump and a bunch of you all here, too!
posted by feste at 8:46 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


GTM, I was responding to zachlipton.
posted by futz at 8:47 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump and a bunch of you all here, too!

It's true; I believe Juanita Broaddrick is telling the truth.
posted by lalex at 8:49 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


And the chair...multiple chairs even(!) thing was a hit job based on no evidence. I stand by my words until proven otherwise
posted by futz at 8:49 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


But this goes the other way: if a couple of delegates didn’t matter so much, why did Sanders’ supporters get so riled up about their rule violations. It’s really weird.

These are fraught situations all around.


But that is irrelevant as Sanders has lost the nomination. It is now Hillary and the Democratic establishments' job to win the election, they are responsible for the choices they are making, and they shouldn't be getting into it like this with Sanders, imo.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:49 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump and a bunch of you all here, too!

Not sure how you define a bunch, and why you're ignoring the difference between mentioning Bill has been accused of rape (fact) and saying the allegation was true (has anyone at all said this? I certainly have not).
posted by sallybrown at 8:50 PM on May 19, 2016


evidence being the last 7+ years of Obama.

During which time wealth inequality and unrest have continued to grow, the banks have consolidated even further, speculation has continued to run rampant, good jobs have continued to disappear, interventionism has continued to describe our foreign policy involvement, Guantanamo has remained open, state governments around the country have been run into the ground by powerful right wing wackos, health care has remained inaccessibly costly for millions and millions of people, ...

I love Obama. He is a great man. His was not a perfect presidency, whatever the circumstances. When those of us who say it say that we do not want more of the same, maybe don't tell us what we're saying isn't as important as we think it is. (Let's leave it at "it can't be done," because at least we can simply disagree on that.)
posted by an animate objects at 8:52 PM on May 19, 2016 [21 favorites]


It's only May and Trump is already accusing Bill Clinton of rape, straight up.

Trump and a bunch of you all here, too!

I agree with Hillary Clinton about how people should respond. I just don't have the same view of the evidence she apparently does. I haven't seen enough to say I disbelieve their claims.

At a campaign event in New Hampshire, a woman asked Hillary Clinton, “You say that all rape victims should be believed, but you say that about Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Wiley, and/or Paula Jones? Should we believe them, as well?"

Clinton responded, “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

posted by Drinky Die at 8:55 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


I feel like there are decades old things (and newer things) I would like Sanders to address but since he's losing I wonder whether mentioning them seems petty, on the other hand, to the extent he is choosing to both still be in the race and to treat it like an open contest, maybe it's hypocritical or patronizing NOT to say them? But maybe it's more politic to 'court' Sanders supported by not saying them? But I don't want to implicitly affirm the idea that Clinton is somehow uniquely morally compromised (while Sanders is not), because I think it is sexist and harmful both to women and the election and Trump's narrative about her. It feels like a tightrope. How do I be enthusiastic and legitimately partisan (because if an election is not a time to be partisan I don't know what is) for Clinton without alienating fellow progressives (who might not see me as a fellow just because I support Clinton), many of whom, at least around me, are actually pretty high visibility/social/cultural/economic status, in many ways higher than I am?

Maybe that's why support for Clinton seems muted and the narrative that she doesn't inspire enthusiasm in supporters has legs. Maybe I should wear a Clinton t-shirt. But would it just invite harassment? I don't know!!

(And I don't think of myself as sheeple or a beige and I am not completely uncritical of Clinton's political history or even current choices, nor completely uncritical of democratic processes, political establishments, etc. But I'm not sure how to counter the idea that enthusiastically supporting her means I'm a sheeple without dignifying the idea that I'm kind of a moron incapable of nuance. I don't know!!)
posted by Salamandrous at 9:15 PM on May 19, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'm not convinced that in the modern world with capital being hypermobile that the idea that any political figure can somehow undo decades of converting the US from being a manufacturing centric economy to a service, information and consumer driven economy. I'm not even convinced that reversing that shift would necessarily be a great thing for the world in general. Yes there has been a lot of American workers hurt in the shift of manufacturing jobs overseas but many of those jobs have resulted in the modernization of the political and economic systems in those countries with large increases in per capita wealth and a host of other benefits. It could also be seen as instrumental to the widespread adoption of democratic ideas in many nations.

Yes lots of Americans are hurting and there is an incredible amount of wealth inequality in this country but it's not entirely clear that the policies proposed by Sanders would really do that much in stopping much less reversing those structural changes in the economy.

I definitely support increasing progressive taxation but it's also abundantly clear that the hyper-rich (the 0.1% and the 0.01%) can pretty much do business in any location and there is nothing inherently tying them to the US any more. They can basically choose to in effect invest in whatever locations provide the best return on investment so make it too onerous for them and they will increase the level of tax dodging using tax havens or they will park even more money in overseas investments. Furthermore his proposed anti-speculation tax has been widely criticized as doing only a limited amount to decrease speculation with an increased likelihood of actually increasing volatility, reducing liquidity, and actually limiting access to capital for investors looking to grow or expand businesses.

I'm not saying that policies shouldn't be enacted to reduce the consolidation of capital in the US but these are exceedingly complex policy issues in which agreement even among nobel laureate economic policy experts seems to be limited.

Personally I find the attempts to boil the solution for what ails the US from both economic and socio-political policies down to "we need a revolution in this country" to be frankly a bit depressing because I don't really think good sound bites are a good replacement for good public policy but there has been a tendency to provide easy answers to the electorate that ultimately are a mixture of unachievable (Sanders) or simply wrongheaded and evil (Trump). I'm not saying I love all of Clinton's policy approaches but they seem to be consistently grounded in reality even if the eventual impacts seem to be reinforcing the consolidation of wealth.
posted by vuron at 9:29 PM on May 19, 2016 [18 favorites]


And the chair...multiple chairs even(!) thing was a hit job based on no evidence. I stand by my words until proven otherwise

The chair thing is a red herring though. I don't care if chairs were thrown. I think it unlikely that they were. There was plenty of bad behavior completely apart from any probably non-existent chair throwing.
posted by Justinian at 9:31 PM on May 19, 2016 [18 favorites]


It now looks like there's a strong chance that no chairs were thrown, true. The reporting I heard (on NPR) was careful to say "chairs were said to have been thrown, though this has not been verified."

It was a highly chaotic situation, where the most respected local reporter on the scene (Ralston) reported that chairs had been thrown, based on the firsthand report of another local journalist, and there was clear video of a Sanders supporter brandishing a chair, and other videos of Sanders supporters rushing the stage and yelling "F*ck that C*nt" while the Twitter feed on screen is full of comments saying "RIOT!" and "We'll bail you out of jail," while others doxxed the chairwoman (@MEagle420's tweet is still up, I'm not going to link to it) and people openly tweeted and phoned in death threats.

I definitely think the news outlets who reported chair throwing as fact should at least report the uncertainty -- Snopes, by the way, does not call it false, just "Unproven". (This one guy put his chair down. That's not proof that no one threw a chair.) But calling it "a hit job based on no evidence" is just not accurate.
posted by msalt at 9:52 PM on May 19, 2016 [24 favorites]


Nader 2.0

fuck that shit. as atrios says, it's *her* job to convince me to vote for her. she should do her job.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:54 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


Like wise if a couple delegates didn't matter so much why did the HRC folks fight so hard to get them?

They weren't "fighting" to get delegates. The party representatives were simply counting the votes and awarding delegates according to the count as required by the rules. Are you suggesting that the party representatives should have committed election fraud and illegally awarded a few extra delegates to Sanders in a effort to make peace with his supporters?
posted by JackFlash at 9:58 PM on May 19, 2016 [28 favorites]


it's *her* job to convince me to vote for her. she should do her job.

Perhaps, but I don't think it is *his* job to tell you not to vote for her either.
posted by FJT at 10:02 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


Nader 2.0

fuck that shit. as atrios says, it's her job to convince me to vote for her. she should do her job.

I guess the yuge one isn’t motivating…

Après moi, le postiche.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:04 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Après moi, le postiche.

*that* is funny.
posted by j_curiouser at 10:08 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


msalt, if this was the "most respected local reporter" in attendance in NV, the fourth estate is in boat load of trouble.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 10:13 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Did Sanders complain about the rules before he entered the primary? Did he complain about any unfair rules in states that he won, or does he just complain when the rules go against him?
posted by kirkaracha at 10:19 PM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


Obama tanked in the polls in 2008 after McCain nominated Palin (!!!), trailing by 10 points.

Not really. Based on RealClearPolitics' averages of polls, McCain got a brief spike to about a 3-4 point lead the week of the Republican convention before dropping as people realized what an idiot Palin is.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:23 PM on May 19, 2016


Everyone used the chairs story as evidence of violence.. It is not irrelevant at all. The narrative is out in the world now despite Sander's supporters shouting from the rooftops that it wasn't true. The media failed to do their due diligence. Nina Turner has been trying over and over again to correct the record of what happened and no one will listen to her. Reporters have reported the exact opposite of what she has been saying and tweeting and attributing false quotes to her. Why? Where is the fact checking? Why does this keep happening?
posted by futz at 10:23 PM on May 19, 2016 [11 favorites]


Guess she must be one of those Bernie Bros we keep hearing about.
posted by iamck at 10:25 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


Futz, welcome to the last 20 years of being a Clinton supporter.
posted by happyroach at 10:25 PM on May 19, 2016 [18 favorites]


So a fake chair throwing story is the new reason Bernie's going to lose? His loss is not the result of a vast conspiracy - he's losing, and is going to lose, because he sought the Democratic party nomination, with all the caucus / closed primary / media madness bullshit that entails (all of which he was aware of before he jumped in), and he did not get enough votes. Not enough people with the power to choose the nominee wanted him to be the nominee. It's not some big, nefarious con.
posted by sallybrown at 10:29 PM on May 19, 2016 [28 favorites]


Everyone used the chairs story as evidence of violence.

I feel like the "thousands of death threats, threats of violence, and misogynistic insults" received by Roberta Lange are the important "evidence" here.

An obsession with focusing on whether a chair was or was not thrown, and whether there was or was not a vast Democratic Party Establishment conspiracy to spread lies about airborne chairs, really seems like an attempt to obfuscate the very real truth that a small group of utterly unhinged Sanders supporters did in fact engage in hateful, vitriolic threats of actual physical harm to this woman.
posted by dersins at 10:37 PM on May 19, 2016 [60 favorites]


Also, how did 50 people become delegates if they weren't eligible

By all accounts, at least some of them were eligible when they became delegates byt no longer eligible at the time of the convention. Because they were no longer Democrats.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:40 PM on May 19, 2016


And those are mild compared to some I've seen cited elsewhere. Like the ones that say shit like "we know where your kids/grandkids to school," and so forth. There are some--including that one-- quoted here.
posted by dersins at 10:48 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


So I just realized that a fascinating side-effect of Trump's anti-semitic brigade is that a bunch of white dudes are getting a taste of the kind of social media abuse that women have been subject to for a long time. I wonder if and how that's going to change discussions of things like GamerGate.

By "white dudes" are you referring to Jews? Because if so, most of us are depressingly familiar with being the targets of antisemitic hatred both on the internet and off it. Directly or indirectly.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think death threats and Holocaust references are "fascinating." People like Tila Tequila literally wished for Ben Shapiro and his newborn child to be put in gas chambers on Twitter.
posted by zarq at 10:49 PM on May 19, 2016 [17 favorites]


The world is full of assholes. I've done insurance, finance, and banking IT for 30 years.

Fundamentally, I can't reconcile how we can routinely count 22,500,000,000 pennies to the tenth of a cent, but can't get our act together and count the 225,000,000 registered votes that might come in.

The sturm-und-drang of the assholes is is the direct result of frustration with a system that lacks, repeatability, openness, and transparency.

For me, the lack of audit trails give away the game. I'll sum up as, "I'm really enjoying the show they're putting on. Clinton as the Face, Trump as the Heel. I wonder, are there any WWE people involved? Where's Stephanie McMahon these days?"

And I am *certain* the tabulating servers will announce Hillary Clinton as the winner.
posted by mikelieman at 10:55 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


[please don't post horrible stuff here just to prove that it exists, thanks.]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:00 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also, how did 50 people become delegates if they weren't eligible

It is my understanding that 56 delegates were not even there. As in, not physically present at the convention, and thus could not be certified. Also, there were delegates who were Democrats when they were chosen, but withdrew themselves from the party membership before the convention. Obviously, if you are not a Democrat you can't exactly expect to be a participant in party processes.

And I am *certain* the tabulating servers will announce Hillary Clinton as the winner.

Just to double-check, are you arguing Clinton stole the primaries from Sanders? If so, would you mind providing proof? Otherwise, this just reads like nasty insinuation meant to cast further aspersion on her credibility without having any backing to do so.
posted by schroedinger at 11:01 PM on May 19, 2016 [15 favorites]


Just to double-check, are you arguing Clinton stole the primaries from Sanders?

I'm not *arguing* anything. Maybe it's because I live in Albany, NY and always enjoyed William Kennedy's writing that I think any candidate that can't out-ratfuck the other guy, doesn't deserve the job.

I *support* Sanders because he most aligns with my values. But I'm not naive. I learned from Nixon/McGovern all I needed to know. Dude never had a chance in hell. I still voted for him, and encourage others. Pascal's Wager? I might be wrong and it doesn't hurt to vote anyway?

Do you think the servers have *ever* been secure? FWIW, it's a lot easier all around than throwing ballots of boxes from republican precints in the Hudson River or fucking up chad-punching machines.
posted by mikelieman at 11:06 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Or shaving gears on the old lever machines.... My favourite.
posted by mikelieman at 11:07 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'll cut this short right now. I'm not interested in anything but a certified audit of the computing infrastructure that tabulates the votes. Everything else is just pointless arguing back and forth. I'm done. ( But if you can lay your hands on a certified end-to-end audit, I need to see it! )
posted by mikelieman at 11:10 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


I mean, I think a voter verified paper trail is a minimum step toward ensuring our elections are fair, and we should fight for that in places where it doesn't happen, but I think it's awfully disingenuous to throw around the idea that the primary was literally a fraud (as in millions of people voted for Sanders but those votes were thrown out or counted for Clinton) without a shred of evidence.

It also ignores the actual and very real disenfranchisement of voters through policies that range from caucuses to voter ID laws, which we're seemingly powerless to stop.
posted by zachlipton at 11:12 PM on May 19, 2016 [24 favorites]


If you have specific accusations to lay against a specific candidate, then please do so. Oblique posts darkly alluding to a lack of security are not very helpful and do not really contribute to any dialogue about anything. See, right now, it appears you are saying that Clinton conspired to steal the primary election, without offering any proof that she did so other than your assertion that there is not enough security in the vote tabulating process. Is this what you're trying to say?

Otherwise, if you are raising general questions about election audits, then I encourage you to make a separate post documenting your concerns about the process. Because if you do not intend to imply national voting conspiracies exist then you are not doing a very good job of it.
posted by schroedinger at 11:34 PM on May 19, 2016 [18 favorites]


what if, like, Clinton actually gets more votes because more people vote for her

did I just blow your mind
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:35 PM on May 19, 2016 [57 favorites]


Wait, so if the elections are rigged the polls that fairly accurately predict election outcomes must be rigged too. The polls are conducted by supposedly independent organizations, but they must be in on it! Some of them are administered by major universities! And the exit polling too. This is amazing. Just how many people are in on this?
posted by chrchr at 11:37 PM on May 19, 2016 [15 favorites]


[Several comments deleted. Mikelieman, cut it out completely, immediately, and take a break from the thread.]
posted by taz (staff) at 11:47 PM on May 19, 2016 [10 favorites]


Actual stuff that disenfranchises voters that we can and should fight:
  • Voter ID laws
  • Felon disenfranchisement
  • Hours long lines at polling places
  • Unreasonably early deadlines to register or declare a party
  • Cutting back or eliminating early voting options
  • Caucuses
posted by zachlipton at 11:57 PM on May 19, 2016 [33 favorites]


Also, how did 50 people become delegates if they weren't eligible?

Well, here's one example -- a Sanders delegate who posted on Reddit that they changed their registration out of the Democratic Party betweeen the second and third conventions as a protest.

More generally, delegates had a deadline to register in advance of the 3rd convention. 64 Sanders delegates, and 8 Clinton delegates, didn't do that and so they were disqualified. 8 of the Sanders delegates did show up at the 3rd convention anyway, and the committee -- composed of 5 Sanders supporters and 5 Clinton supporters -- admitted six of them after their proved they lived in their districts.
posted by msalt at 12:07 AM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


Or shaving gears on the old lever machines....

I actually saw a couple of machines with shaved gears in Philly in the 80s. Twas a lesson in machine politics (pun intended.)

Seismic shift in CIncyBluesland. My 82 year old mother, who cast her first presidential ballot for Eisenhower's second time around, told me today that she has changed her Republican registration to Democrat. Apparently she did this a few months ago. I knew she was unhappy with the Repubs but I didn't think she'd go that far. Her birthday is Saturday so I told her to "pick a restaurant that serves booze because I'm buying you a double-shot." She's a traditional Episcopalian so she's down for that!
posted by CincyBlues at 12:23 AM on May 20, 2016 [25 favorites]


msalt, if this was the "most respected local reporter" in attendance in NV, the fourth estate is in boat load of trouble.

What makes you say that? Because he stood by his account when harassed on Twitter?

Ironically, Sanders supporters liked this same reporter earlier when he called BS on the Clinton camp's description of the second round. if you want actual facts, as in eyewitness descriptions, here is Ralston's half hour TV show describing the events. To update my earlier comment, it appears that 50 of the 64 challenged Sanders delegates did not show up, while 14 did. Of those, 8 were rejected and 6 were accepted.

Here is another eyewitness account by someone there who saw chairs thrown.

By the way, Politifact ruled that allegations that the Clinton campaign "hijacked" the process or ignored "regular procedure" as Jeff Weaver stated, false. Not unproven, but false. A Politifact staffer is on this same show discussing it in some detail.
posted by msalt at 12:38 AM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


How do I be enthusiastic and legitimately partisan (because if an election is not a time to be partisan I don't know what is) for Clinton without alienating fellow progressives (who might not see me as a fellow just because I support Clinton), many of whom, at least around me, are actually pretty high visibility/social/cultural/economic status, in many ways higher than I am?

There have been a lot of nasty pieces written about the deficiencies of one group of supporters or the other, and I think they're the absolute worst that this election season has had to offer. I tend to notice more of the ones that are directed at me personally, which I assume is pretty natural, but I'm aware of the general climate all around. I don't like being called naive or anything else I've been associated with lately, and it's really put me off of talking about this with anyone. But I also really, really don't like hearing about people sending death threats and being nasty. Not because they're on my "side," but because it's horrible behavior and it's inexcusable.

The reality is that the vast majority of us are totally OK with whichever candidate you support. You don't hear from us so much, because what are we going to say? "Well, I don't, but have a nice day anyway?" If someone wants to disagree on a specific point, I'll talk about that, but if I see someone wearing a Clinton shirt I assume it's because her campaign appeals to them for reasons that are significant to them. Just like how I support Sanders for reasons that are significant to me. You can - gasp - disagree with me on this without being an idiot. I think my social circles are pretty evenly split between Sanders and Clinton supporters, and this has somehow not caused us to throw punches or stop returning calls.

Look, there are millions of things in my life that could be worse than voting for Clinton. Do I enthusiastically support her? No. Does that mean people who do are somehow missing some crucial information? No! I have my reservations about her, just like I do with Obama and other eminently qualified politicians. I have reservations about Sanders, for that matter. I've just made a mental calculus that adds up to supporting him, and I like to think a person can do that.

All of this was a late-night, long-winded way of saying that the vast majority of people won't be alienated by your supporting Clinton. The whole "political spectrum" thing is absolute bullshit, and I'm not going to think you're less than me because your views don't line up with mine. If you're willing to do the same for me, we're cool, and I'll keep on being enthusiastic about Sanders - even if I know he's not perfect himself.
posted by teponaztli at 12:55 AM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


All that said, I don't know how anyone else can react, and it's depressing to think that you'd get shit for supporting Clinton, just like it depresses me to get shit for supporting Sanders. I guess I'm just trying to say that you hear from the loudmouths more than anyone else. But they don't speak for most of us.
posted by teponaztli at 12:58 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


MF, I confess I was fully ready to find all HRC hate here. But I underestimated that many others here would have had the same growing doubts about Bernie I've had. And reasoned discussion regardless of views. Very impressive indeed.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:24 AM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


Btw, I don't think it's fair to blame increasing inequality on Obama. He's really tried, and managed to hike taxes on the rich twice. And he's trying to deal with stuff set out in the Panama Papers. But Congress.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:29 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


By the way, Politifact ruled that allegations that the Clinton campaign "hijacked" the process or ignored "regular procedure" as Jeff Weaver stated, false. Not unproven, but false. A Politifact staffer is on this same show discussing it in some detail.

I dug into the Nevada thing in the other thread for quite some time to try and make sure I understood what happened. And as a factual matter it looks to me like the procedures were properly followed to the best of the ability of the people running the convention and a group of people didn't like the fact that they lost and we've all seen the result. That's as far as I can tell what happened and it's what every single objective news source I've looked at has also concluded.

But the discouraging thing is that I don't think it is possible to convince the diehards that that is what happened. And I don't know what to do about it. Maybe there's nothing to be done. But when people say Clinton needs to win their votes and then point to things like what happened in Nevada as evidence that she is failing to do so I get depressed. Because it seems divorced from reality. And I thought we were supposed to live in the reality-based community? Did that change in the last few years?
posted by Justinian at 2:43 AM on May 20, 2016 [12 favorites]


I talked to a Bernie-Or-Buster I know today long enough for him to share that he was also a Gamergater. He is very confident that everything we're hearing out of Nevada is lies, lies.

Another one I talked to said the texts that Roberta Lange received which said she "deserved to be hung in the public square" weren't a threat but "an opinion." I shit you not.

Most Sanders supporters I know are working their way towards acceptance. Others are twisting as hard as they can to acknowledging the flaws in their guy's approach, or that he's lost.
posted by EatTheWeak at 2:52 AM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


A disability activist talks about switching from Sanders to Clinton. I've excerpted a bunch, but the whole thing is worth the read:

“Berned” by Bernie Sanders
Last fall, a fellow disability activist and close friend of mine introduced me to Bernie Sanders. From the moment I first heard his platform, I was hooked. After living abroad several years in a country with socialized medicine and heavily subsidized education, I was thrilled an American politician was proposing these policies here. Due to my own disabilities, the cost of healthcare has become exorbitant and becoming chronically ill forced me to leave my career in public service litigation to collect meager social security benefits. So, Bernie’s message resonated strongly with my own personal experience of being in the 99%.
[...]
I began contacting the campaign as early as the fall to advise them on their disability outreach failures, as well as to communicate grave concerns the community was having with some on his policies. I tried every possible method of communication from emailing the campaign through the website and contacting them through social media, to direct emails and text messages to top political directors, including Jeff Weaver, BEGGING them to respond. I also discovered that I was not the only disability activist experiencing this very frustration with the campaign.
[...]
Finally, his political director, Billy Gendell, a non-disabled white male, responded by scheduling a phone call with me. I was finally hopeful once again, but what came next was personally devastating. . . . The only policy answer that wasn’t “off the record” was Bernie’s official statement on the opioid issue, sent to me via email. It said that chronic pain sufferers should seek yoga or guided meditation to ease our suffering.
[...]
So, begrudgingly, I told a Hillary supporter with a disability that I was now considering supporting Hillary. He immediately introduced me via email to a blind Clinton staffer. Within literally minutes, she emailed me at 9 p.m. saying she would like to speak to me about the campaign. I was so encouraged by how quickly they responded, after the months I was ignored by Bernie.

She didn’t treat me like a nuisance like the Bernie campaign did but rather an asset. She wanted to know my legal and advocacy opinion on disability policy. She explained in detail how Hillary planned to initiate change for us with sophisticated, legal political strategy. And, then she asked me to come on board and help the campaign best meet the needs of the disability community through, inter alia, writing for the campaign after they were able to officially vet my credentials. I soon realized that the Clinton campaign didn’t just care about the disability community; they hired us and treated us like the intelligent people we are.
posted by schroedinger at 3:29 AM on May 20, 2016 [57 favorites]


Also, I don't know if this tweet means Ivanka Trump currently supports Clinton or just has supported her in the past--but God, I hope it's the former.
posted by schroedinger at 3:33 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


What's precisely interesting about Bernie is that he made a questionable tactical choice openly criticizing the elections and party apparatus.

It can be what distinguishes a leftist and a neoliberal.

The effect is the same as when in other situations leftists use critiques on structure, microaggressions, privilege, etc. Once such internal discourse is exposed, out-groups always immediately construe such language as proof that leftists are in reality cynical, ineffectual, hostile, overcritical, and a heap of other negative qualities. This reaction is due to a gap in ideology i.e. a difference of personal values and social contexts.

Bernie seems a leftist insofar as he genuinely believes in open discourse, speech-as-commons, 1968, calling-out, e.g. questioning legitimacy of authority. He performs this in his acts of criticism.

So when he actually does this, he is cast as "bad" for a) undermining his mainstream appeal, and b) presenting a major hazard of vote-splitting. He is hurting himself and messing things up for other people, in other words.

Obama thinks of himself as more politically sophisticated, for example by avoiding talk of "revolution", instead emphasizing a positivist rhetoric of cooperation and working towards gradual change. But that's the fundamental difference: Bernie can't help not be a closet leftist, because it's so tempting to speak truth to power. Every left activist has this as a personal threshold, because deep down we believe ideas matter. Evidently Bernie crossed his and he spoke his mind.

Let's say the mainstream are right: suppose there are exigencies that require politicians and citizens to not conduct critique. If you must, do it privately, with an audience you know. But then, when would voicing these issues in the public sphere ever be appropriate?
posted by polymodus at 4:31 AM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


My issue with Bernie is not that he's voicing critique of the party. It's that he's blaming the issues with the party for his loss, giving his supporters the impression that he lost because he wuz robbed, rather than because he lacked the necessary votes. Using legitimate critiques of the party to prop up a losing campaign in such a false way ends up hurting efforts to fix the very real issues with the party.
posted by sallybrown at 4:36 AM on May 20, 2016 [22 favorites]


There are ways to critique the party and party apparatus that are not summed up as "Everyone is corrupt and they are all trying to disenfranchise you and this election has been stolen from me."
posted by schroedinger at 4:38 AM on May 20, 2016 [17 favorites]


Chuck Todd just mentioned on MSNBC that in their most recent poll, so many respondents were answering "neither" to the question of Donald vs Hillary that they had to meet to talk about whether to change the poll ("neither" was not an option given in this poll).
posted by sallybrown at 4:38 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


GOP elite line up behind Donald Trump

That didn't take long.
posted by octothorpe at 4:46 AM on May 20, 2016


re: the neither thing

oh no this is going to be the south park election of false equivalencies isn't it

maddening
posted by defenestration at 4:48 AM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


They had some Republican politician on MSNBC as well (a former governor?) who clung to his choice to vote for Donald despite Mika pushing him to name a single policy he agreed with Donald on. All he could say was that Donald was from the business community and Hillary was from "the party of redistribution." So she gets tagged from the right for the thing those from the left claim she isn't. Cool.

Yesterday, Mika told Bob Gates that her father (Zbigniew Brzezinski) wanted him to run as a third party. (Hey, mine too!)

I'm still planning to sit out the primary (one for my feelings) but then vote Hillary in the general (one for pragmatism and the survival of my country).
posted by sallybrown at 5:04 AM on May 20, 2016


I've seen two people on Facebook complain that "both of the choices for President are terrible" and they were both Republicans (and Mormons). At first I thought this was a terrible false equivalency but I think I can understand this -- they have a choice between a giant orange racist man-baby and someone who has seriously contrary positions to theirs (pro choice, anti gun, etc.)

I'm hoping most of the "neither" votes come from Republicans and right-leaning independents.

I'm hoping.
posted by mmoncur at 5:09 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Eight Years Ago
posted by indubitable at 5:25 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


The future is ringing in my ears.

"She's going to steal the election from us the way she stole it from Bernie. But we're stronger and won't let that happen!" –Trump

*the crowd explodes in cheers of righteous anger*
posted by defenestration at 5:27 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


The future is ringing in my ears.

Future? How about earlier this morning.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:31 AM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


For someone not on the U.S. in a country with a lot of corrupt political parties, the naivety of some people here are downright astounding. I mean, c'mon, what the f--k? I am reminded of a Current Affairs article about political vulgarity and how it is sometimes needed when the system/policy/war are utterly inimical to human prosperity and lives.

The point is, if your party's system is corrupt, then calling it corrupt is par the course. Political power players are corrupt and incestious - and the Establishment is real, at least in here. My nation's respected politicians openly rig our voting process, engage in outright bribes and are generally being a scum of the highest degree.

I have little doubt that in the U.S. -- from what I have read -- is also like that, even though to a lesser degree. The game is rigged, and what do you do when that happens? You shout to be heard, you complain and take actions to the street. In my country, some people riot and attack government building or stage a non-peaceful demonstration, time to time. For me? That is justified. Twenty years ago, when the government and the largest political party was killing people left and right and mostly be dictatorial oligarchists, what should we do? Be polite? No. No way. Fuck that.

I sympathize with Bernie voters because the accusation that he's mad that he lost and now he is trying to divide the party up seems hollow when the statement that he has made was like this : "The people of this country want a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent, super PACs and wealthy campaign contributors." What the hell is wrong with that? That quote is from the full speech. All the talk about the potential disunity of the democratic party in this thread reminded me of hardcore nationalists in this country that uses that kind of language to tamp up political discourses, kill leftists and jail 'non-nationalists' without due process. It's sickening.

Although I do understand what is at stake here (Trump) and how much of a disaster if he would be elected, both for the U.S. and for the world, but telling Bernie to shut up and resign is, frankly, stupid beyond belief for reasons outlined above.
posted by tirta-yana at 6:10 AM on May 20, 2016 [17 favorites]


I have little doubt that in the U.S. -- from what I have read -- is also like that, even though to a lesser degree. The game is rigged, and what do you do when that happens? You shout to be heard, you complain and take actions to the street. In my country, some people riot and attack government building or stage a non-peaceful demonstration, time to time. For me? That is justified. Twenty years ago, when the government and the largest political party was killing people left and right and mostly be dictatorial oligarchists, what should we do? Be polite? No. No way. Fuck that.

The US has 235 million registered voters. There is one president. It's a massive undertaking to distill the will of an electorate that size into a suitable representative. It's not like Bernie is being fucked by technicalities, Clinton is three million votes ahead out of 23 million votes cast so far in the primaries. This is basically "I'm not getting my way so I'm going to have a tantrum and throw salt over every piece of dirt I can find".
posted by Talez at 6:19 AM on May 20, 2016 [14 favorites]


How specifically is the game rigged?
posted by defenestration at 6:23 AM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


The other thing is that people are individuals and have other pressing issues and concerns than just political corruption and corporate money in government. Social conservatives for instance will vote for anti-choice and anti-equality candidates over anti-corruption candidates any day of the week.
posted by Talez at 6:23 AM on May 20, 2016


Clinton is three million votes ahead in a system that includes caucuses with much lower participation than primaries as well as media outlets lying about Sanders' chances for 11 months, doing everything they can to foster the narrative that Clinton is inevitable.

That is certainly a rigged game.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:25 AM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


The point is, if your party's system is corrupt, then calling it corrupt is par the course.

I don't want to speak for all Hillary supporters but, again, can someone provide proof of a rigged election beyond the "people who weren't registered Democrats weren't allowed to be delegates in Nevada" complaint? Hand-wavy statements like "the system is corrupt" does actually get my head nodding in agreement, to a degree, but then... well, what else is there? Specifically? The debate schedule? I mean, if you think about it, Bernie has been winning a lot of states lately. He's basically been winning the states that, demographically, he's supposed to win. But wouldn't a rigged campaign have tried to blunt his momentum somehow by stopping him in Indiana, or Michigan, or any of the other close races? I see impressively few shenanigans in the Dem race.

I think that the really simple reason why Bernie lost is not surprising, and it's not a conspiracy. He got destroyed on Super Tuesday because minority voters and old people voted for Hillary.

But at this point both sides have made their arguments and I guess we'll just keep going back and forth until after the California primary.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:26 AM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


the accusation that he's mad that he lost and now he is trying to divide the party up seems hollow when the statement that he has made was like this : "The people of this country want a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent, super PACs and wealthy campaign contributors." What the hell is wrong with that?

Any argument about how "the people" want you to be President when a substantial majority of them have been consistently voting for the other candidate is either divorced from reality or disingenuous.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:27 AM on May 20, 2016 [33 favorites]


Clinton is three million votes ahead in a system that includes caucuses with much lower participation than primaries as well as media outlets lying about Sanders' chances for 11 months, doing everything they can to foster the narrative that Clinton is inevitable.

If we ran a system where the candidates were picked by popular vote all on the same day we'd probably have the exact same result as we do now. The only reason Sanders has been able to pick up points is the long and disjointed primary season the US has. If we all voted back in February we'd have shown up, delivered Clinton a landslide and gone home.

The only way you can have a Bernie victory this season is literally rigging it as hard as possible for an anti-establishment candidate.
posted by Talez at 6:28 AM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


I think you're discounting the massive effect that CNN, NBC, etc. have had on perceptions about Sanders' and Clinton's chances.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:30 AM on May 20, 2016


I think you're discounting the massive effect that CNN, NBC, etc. have had on perceptions about Sanders' and Clinton's chances.

Yes, let's not discount this -- it's reason number one why Trump was soundly defeated by Jeb!
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:32 AM on May 20, 2016 [29 favorites]


zachlipton But I guess what it comes down to for me is a doubt that Sanders could have brought about structural change in the way you propose.

I'm 100% certain that he couldn't have brought about any structural change. As you note, this is a hard problem, with massive inertia and huge wealth on the side of the bad guys.

But he could have, would have, at least brought attention to the problem and perhaps begun the process that would eventually lead to getting it solved. And sure, he can try to do that as a Senator or even as a private citizen, but the President has a much louder voice.

I'm not even sure he'd have really tried very hard, but I think that he would have at least acknowledged the problem, and I know that Clinton and every other establishment candidate won't. Frankly, I'll take whatever I can get here, because to my mind the problem of wealth is so huge, and the consequences of ignoring it are so dire, that even just a tiny hint that someone might bring attention to it is all the hope I have at the moment.

I absolutely did not expect a revolution or for Sanders to be a savior. Maybe others did, but I didn't.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, unless there's a miracle the Republicans will have the House through 2020, and they're still likely to hold on to the Senate (though less so with the Supreme Court tantrum and the Trump candidacy). Given that, all the President can really do is hold the line, maintain the status quo, via the veto, and use the bully pulpit to try and advocate.

I expect both Clinton and Sanders will do a good enough job holding the line, though I'm less confident that Clinton will preserve Social Security I can easily see her "pragmatically" trading it away for temporary concessions from the R's just for the sake of getting anything done. I expected the benefit of Sanders mainly to be that he'd be out there, using the voice of the presidency, to sound the alarm about the problem of wealth.

vuron I'm not convinced that in the modern world with capital being hypermobile that the idea that any political figure can somehow undo decades of converting the US from being a manufacturing centric economy to a service, information and consumer driven economy. I'm not even convinced that reversing that shift would necessarily be a great thing for the world in general.

Nor am I, and if I gave the impression that I thought a critical part of things was bringing manufacturing back to the USA [1] then I must have badly misstatted things because I do not at all think that switching America to a manufacturing economy is a good or necessary thing.

What worries me is not what sort of jobs there are, or really even if there are jobs [2] for everyone, but rather the growing wealth gap and income inequality in general.

In the 1950's the average CEO made around twelve times what the lowest paid worker in their company made. This made those CEO's rich people, they had mansions and live in maids and yachts and so on. But there was money for everyone else too.

Today the average CEO makes over three hundred times what their lowest paid worker makes, and many make over one thousand times what their lowest paid worker makes. This makes them not merely rich but obscenely rich. And their wealth has come in part by taking away wealth from poorer people. In the USA wages increased to match productivity increases with the the percentage of the pie for every class not significantly changing, but everyone steadily getting a bit better off thanks to the pie growing.

In the 1970's that stopped and productivity skyrocketed while wages stagnated or shrank.

**THAT** is the problem I see. Not manufacturing jobs going away, but jobs that pay a living wage and jobs that provide a middle class life going away. The job that once provided a middle class life for a family of four now provides barely enough for a single person to scrape by on.

That is the deep structural problem I'm worried about. Because while a lot of people have philosophic objections to addressing this problem via redistribution or whatever, it still hurts them and so they look for someone to blame.

The situation today is where right wing populism comes from. People are legitimately hurting, people who had once hoped for their children to do better than they did now face the serious possibility of their children doing worse, often much worse. Middle class success is increasingly out of reach for people, and when the few who have it attain it they discover that it is precarious and a single illness or injury can push them back into abject poverty.

The uncertainty, the fear, leads to a rise in authoritarianism. Worse, it leads to scapegoating any minority or despised group. The average right wing person may not be willing to place the blame where it belongs (on the looter billionaire class), but they're perfectly willing to place the blame for their economic suffering on Jews, immigrants, women, academics, intellectuals, gay people, trans people, brown people, environmentalists, basically anyone who isn't a cis, white, straight, man.

Where do you think Trump got the support that has catapulted a completely incompetent buffoon like him into the Republican presidential nomination? It didn't just come out of nowhere. It didn't just happen because Republicans are dumb. It happened because the seething resentment fueled by massive income inequality and economic pain has been bubbling steadily for decades now and is finally reaching a point where those people will vote for any idiot who promises them quick, easy, cheap, answers that match their prejudices. Trump is just the first and those who follow him will be better and smarter and thus more effective.

Until **SOMETHING** happens and the actual core issue is addressed the authoritarian, right wing populism, that we see with Trump will not go away, it will just keep growing until it is unstoppable.

We see it in Greece, we see it in France, in Spain, in Hungary. All places where vicious, racist, bigoted, authoritarian, right wing populism is rising. Because they are having the same sort of economic problems we have, and for the same reason: the rich are hoarding all the money.

I'm not saying that policies shouldn't be enacted to reduce the consolidation of capital in the US but these are exceedingly complex policy issues in which agreement even among nobel laureate economic policy experts seems to be limited.

I'm in 100% agreement with you here. It is a non-trivial problem, doubly so today since as you mentioned wealth is a lot more mobile today than it ever has been in the past.

But while I didn't expect Sanders to succeed (or really even have the power to do much beyond talking about the problem), I don't expect Clinton to even talk about the problem, much less even try to fix it.

Because Clinton is part of the problem. She's a member of the billionaire looter class, she identifies with them, she thinks like them, and therefore she is however nice and otherwise a good presidential pick, fundamentally incapable of even thinking that the problem is a problem.

Clinton's presidency, like Obama's presidency, will be one of gains in other areas, holding the line on civil rights, and leaving the core problem of wealth swept under the rug and never discussed. And that's deeply troubling to me.

We can't even begin to try to fix the problem until we admit that it exists. And I think that's going to take Presidential level admitting.

[1] Though, really, it never left much. The USA manufactures more today than it did in the 1950's, but thanks to automation it employs fewer people while making those goods.

[2] I think that we are approaching the point where there is going to be a large permanently unemployed class because increasing automation will reduce the number of jobs. I am convinced that a Universal Basic Income is the only real hope for making it through.
posted by sotonohito at 6:32 AM on May 20, 2016 [20 favorites]


Clinton is three million votes ahead in a system that includes caucuses with much lower participation than primaries

Without the caucases Bernie would be doing worse, not better.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 6:33 AM on May 20, 2016 [24 favorites]


(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates, do you actually think that Trump got the same treatment from the media as Sanders? If so, I don't think we have a shared set of facts.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:35 AM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


Clinton "trading away" social security is not even remotely possible as a thing that could happen

And if the media really wanted to downplay Sanders' chance of winning they could have been all "well he's pretty much out of this, barring a miracle" since early March, which would have been basically true, but they've been more than happy to treat this as a live contest, even after NY
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:38 AM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates, do you actually think that Trump got the same treatment from the media as Sanders? If so, I don't think we have a shared set of facts.

I don't know about treatment but in terms of discounting chances? Yes, Trump got it waaay worse. The media continued to claim that Trump would not win the nomination, months and months after he began leading national polls. They simply continued to deny every poll that said Trump would win. Everyone was waiting for someone to come along and knock him off. Bernie, on the other hand, never led in national polling aggregates. He got close at times, but Clinton has maintained a consistent 5-15% lead over him since the campaign started. So there was really no need for the media to change the narrative that Clinton would ultimately win.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:39 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates, do you actually think that Trump got the same treatment from the media as Sanders? If so, I don't think we have a shared set of facts.

Uhhhh... Trump got told (as politely as you can on basic cable) to fuck off and die by the biggest conservative mouthpiece in America.
posted by Talez at 6:39 AM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


What happened in Nevada:
The Nevada State Democratic Party held its caucus on February 20, and Hillary Clinton won more pledged delegates. However, Nevada has a tiered system, where there are county-level conventions prior to the state convention. Delegates must show up, and when they don’t, it produces an outcome, like what happened in Clark County, which flipped from having more Clinton delegates to more Sanders delegates at the county convention. This increased interest among Sanders supporters, who saw the state convention as a final opportunity to pick up more delegates for Sanders to send to the national convention.

According to several individuals, who were present, the Nevada State Democratic Party, led by chairwoman Roberta Lange, engaged in the following during the 15-hour convention:

Lange and an executive board secretly voted on rules two weeks before the convention to give Lange “exclusive control” over the convention and strictly limit motions, as well as challenges to rulings by the chair

Voted on “temporary rules” for the convention and cheated by calling the vote for the “yeas” when the “nays” clearly had larger numbers. The vote happened early at 9:30 am before all the delegates had arrived. [Video here.]

The State Democratic Party was provided with petitions from twenty percent of the delegates in attendance to challenge the adopted rules. Signatures were collected ahead of the convention because there were activists well-aware of what the Party would try to do with the new “temporary rules.” In fact, one of these people, Angie Morelli, was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Party, which was partly dismissed a day before the convention. The leadership pretended to accept the petitions and then ignored the fact that proper procedure had been followed, blocking any challenges, which effectively disenfranchised a subsection of people attempting to have their voices heard.

Lange granted herself the authority to have the final decision on all the delegates excluded from the convention. There were 56 Sanders delegates and four Clinton delegates, which were deemed to have improper or inadequate registration information. The number of Clinton delegates outnumbered Sanders delegates by only 33 delegates.

When one of the members of the state party committees attempted to read a “Minority Report,” reflecting what had happened with the decision to exclude 56 Sanders delegates, Lange tried to take the microphone out of the hand of the person, who was about to read the report.

Multiple attempts were made to bring motions in order to remove Lange as chair of the state party convention because it appeared to be Lange who was responsible for eruptions of disorder. Congressional candidate Dan Rolle hopped on a megaphone to make a motion and had the megaphone confiscated. Then, Rolle tried again later when he had access to the microphone to make a motion for a “no confidence” vote. The leadership cut off his microphone.

Nina Turner, one of the most prominent and well-respected Sanders surrogates, was there to represent his campaign at the convention. Yet, abruptly, the leadership switched the order and had Senator Barbara Boxer go on stage to speak for the Clinton campaign. Her speech riled up supporters, and as she was booed, she kept riling them up by berating them.

Lange moved to adjourn the convention when there was a motion made for a recount on the floor late in the convention.

State Democratic Party leadership refused to acknowledge delegates from the Sanders side, who were following the rules to make motions, and effectively sowed chaos in the process. As they fled the convention after abruptly adjourning, Las Vegas metro police lined the stage. Sanders delegates contemplated a civil disobedience action in response, but eventually, most left the room as it was cleared. This image of police in the room helped the Party spread propaganda in the hours after that it was the Sanders people who were “violent,” and brought the convention to the point of chaos where it was not safe for people anymore.

Unfortunately, all of this conduct has been drowned out by a narrative that somehow Sanders supporters were sore losers. They misunderstood the process. They mistakenly believed they would win the convention when they should have accepted back in February, when Clinton won the caucus, that they would not flip the state. Charles Pierce of Esquire wrote, “This whole mess was over four freaking delegates, and the Sanders people should know better than to conclude what has been a brilliant and important campaign by turning it into an extended temper tantrum.”
posted by ennui.bz at 6:44 AM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


Went from changing my registration in NY from I to D so I could vote for Bernie (back in the fall) to proudly and eagerly voting for Clinton in the NY primary, to thinking that Bernie's movement is rooted in misogyny (above all) and insulated leftist naiveté and white privilege in recent weeks. I never really believed he could win. Now I hope he loses badly in the final few primaries, which I suspect after the last few days is now assured.

Picking up a chair is violence. Sending threats by text message is violence. Calling women (allies or not) bitches and cunts is violence. You can parse words and split hairs all you want. Those are not legitimate forms of protest in my understanding of American political ideals. And millions of Americans just saw all they needed to see to put this thing to bed. I predict Bernie loses California and New Jersey both by double digits, and deservedly so.

I'm with her, now. And if you think not voting is a choice, you're either selfish or ignorant of history or both. The president has to be president of all Americans, with very diverse views and interests. No campaign based on blaming one class of people for all of our problems (whether that is "immigrants" or "the rich") can produce political change I am interested in supporting as an American.

Vote your conscience, but remember to check your privilege first.
posted by spitbull at 6:44 AM on May 20, 2016 [56 favorites]


I missed the part in logic class where one time one thing happened therefore the opposite has never happened and will never happen.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:45 AM on May 20, 2016


Honestly, if you look at the mass media all you're going to see is confirmation of what you thought, because "The Media" isn't a consistent unitary actor, it's a mess of people and organizations with no real need to be consistent. So The Media says a lot of contradictory things at any given time and any given person or organization is likely to say different things at different times.

You've been annoyed that they've been discounting Sanders' chances. But from my perspective he has never had any realistic chance of winning and I've been annoyed that The Media keeps following their dull and obvious incentives to create interest and viewership by highlighting conflict and the closeness of the race. I will admit that my perspective is different-not-better in part because I'm occasionally on the being-interviewed side of the equation (and was a few times around the NY primary, though I never checked if they saw air or print), so I get frustrated with this tendency because I see it iterated across issues.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:45 AM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


No campaign based on blaming one class of people for all of our problems (whether that is "immigrants" or "the rich") can produce political change I am interested in supporting as an American.

Bingo bingo bingo bingo
posted by sallybrown at 6:47 AM on May 20, 2016 [17 favorites]


Clinton "trading away" social security is not even remotely possible as a thing that could happen

Not in its entirety, of course, but some of us twitch when Democrats view it as something where concessions might be made. How many times did the phrase "grand bargain" rear its ugly head during Obama's terms? The main reason why chained CPI failed wasn't the progressive outrage or Obama's lack of desire for it, but rather the Republicans' refusal to budge an inch on giving anything tax-related in return.

Neither President Sanders nor President Clinton would be able to get substantial positive fiscal or political change past the Senate, much less the House. But Sanders seems less likely to use Obamaesque fiscal negotiation, i.e. "my first offer is in the center-right, your first offer is way off in John Birch Society land, let's meet somewhere in between."
posted by delfin at 6:48 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think there's a vast difference between saying "Trump can't win" but giving him hundreds of hours of media, and saying "Sanders can't win" and giving him a small fraction of the coverage. I can accept that you see it differently, but it seems to me that there is a much different effect between the two types of exposure.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:48 AM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


There is some truth in the assertion that it requires a massive amount of money to actually run for the President or as a member of congress. That definitely tends to skew the representation significantly towards older, rich, white males. Increasingly the money that is required to run for office either requires significant personal capital to the point where self-funding candidates are increasingly found at various levels because it's one of the best ways of achieving the critical mass to even be consider as a serious candidate beyond a local election. This also has an effect of advantaging the incumbent because the cost of campaigns and the challenge of achieving name recognition heavily favor the person who already has successfully run for office.

Yes this can be extremely corrosive to democracy because it distorts representation from an accurate reflection of the electorate to a microcosm of the elite with the consequences that policies that favor the elite tend to be favored by representatives.

This is also reflected in the news coverage by journalists where the research has shown over and over that there tends to be significant bias towards the economic and socio-political status quo by journalists simply because it's of an economic advantage to the publishers and advertisers to reach the highest audience (although admittedly some news outlets adopt much more biased outlooks as a way of differentiating themselves in the market) plus there is a tendency to rely on the wonk bubble of established political experts and commentators. The incestous nature of US TV and Newspaper journalism in regards to maintaining access regardless of the administration seems to be fairly obvious to even the most naive consumer of journalism.

So yeah a more independent fourth estate and less dark money in the process might help improve democracy but it's really not certain how we can achieve those goals and the current "just tear the whole thing down" sentiment being captured by Sanders and Trump plus the typical tendency of journalists to engage in really facile explanations fueled by all sorts of false equivalencies really seem like a symptom of an underlying problem but amazingly neither seem to be long on solutions.

I think the canary in the coalmine is useful but I do want a political leader to be less focused on assigning blame and more focused on creating actionable steps to fixing said problem.
posted by vuron at 6:49 AM on May 20, 2016


prize bull octorok Clinton "trading away" social security is not even remotely possible as a thing that could happen

Obama tried to trade away Social Security and failed only because the Republicans were so far gone into lunacy by then that they wouldn't take the deal, why should I think Clinton wouldn't do the same?

spitbull No campaign based on blaming one class of people for all of our problems (whether that is "immigrants" or "the rich") can produce political change I am interested in supporting as an American.

Then it's a good thing I wasn't blaming all our problems on the rich.

But I do think blaming the economic problems (not all problems, just the economic ones) on the people hoarding all the money isn't exactly unreasonable.

If you disagree, could you identify what other group you think might be to blame rather than just saying I'm a bad person?
posted by sotonohito at 7:00 AM on May 20, 2016 [15 favorites]


Without the caucases Bernie would be doing worse, not better.

Which is why he hasn't pushed for their abolishment in his argument for primary reform. Also, he's happy to benefit from the system being rigged when it's in his favor.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:01 AM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


What about this: every state is a closed primary, but you can change your party registration up to and even the day of the primary. Then anyone can vote for the candidate of their choice, but if you're voting for the Democratic candidate, you've got to be a Democrat. As for caucuses, I think they should all be eliminated, with the possible exception of Iowa. Let one early state be a caucus, sure, but after that, primary voting seems the more democratic and fair way to approach it.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:04 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


What about this: every state is a closed primary, but you can change your party registration up to and even the day of the primary.

How is that functionally different from being an open primary?
posted by Etrigan at 7:07 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


How is that functionally different from being an open primary?

It's basically the same, but it would increase the number of registered Democrats, which I'm guessing would be good for state parties -- more data, more voters on the rolls, etc. It would also tamp down some of the "I'm a Democrat but am voting for Kasich as a vote against Trump" or "I'm a Republican but voting for Sanders to mess with Clinton" type voting we've seen. I mean, sure, you still could do that, but you'd have to change your party registration.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:10 AM on May 20, 2016


It isn't - it's a semi-open primary (anyone can vote in a primary, but must elect which primary to vote in.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:10 AM on May 20, 2016


Caucuses are inherently anti-democratic but the Iowa caucus do serve the purpose of allowing one state to basically do the job of determining how good a candidate can be at retail politics (holding hands and shaking babies, doing endless trips to small town diners to talk to salt of the earth types, etc) and because it has a lower bar on entry it possibly allows for more insurgent candidates to gain traction.

However personally I think anyone running for president these days probably has shown at least a vague mastery of retail politics so the endless Iowa and NH campaign stops are basically of only marginal value and let's be honest neither state is remotely representative of the bulk of the US.

So personally I'd be glad to see the caucuses go altogether.

A national primary day (held on a Saturday to not screw over working class voters of course) has some potential but basically it would always advantage the candidate with massive infrastructure and name recognition so it has drawbacks.

My personal preference would be a rotating calendar of primaries where if you are first one election cycle you are last in another but due to the infrequent nature of elections that can result in some strange distortions of voter sentiment as generations age.

But it's very interesting that Sanders has tended to focus on the undemocratic nature of various parts of the nomination process up to and until it suddenly appears that those parts benefit his campaign.

When Iowa and Nevada were the only caucus states that had voted he talked about how caucuses sucked (NH was his big win at that time) but when he reeled of a massive win streak in caucuses that criticism disappeared. By a similar token he was hyper critical of the nature of super delegates early on but now his campaign has pivoted to full force pitching to them that they should ignore the results of nomination process and focus exclusively on general election matchup polling.

This willingness to be principled up until the point in which being principled erodes his arguments for being in the race has really soured me on him as a politician. I expect most politicians to be opportunistic but he's done such a good job of representing himself as the last honest man in Washington that when the James Stewart/ Jefferson Smith routine goes away it's really jarring.
posted by vuron at 7:20 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


No campaign based on blaming one class of people for all of our problems (whether that is "immigrants" or "the rich")

There may be a good point in this, approached with some subtlety, but drawing that specific parallel as if those are remotely equivalent things manages to be both incredibly dumb and offensive at the same time.
posted by phearlez at 7:22 AM on May 20, 2016 [23 favorites]


well those underprivileged rich folk, someone's gotta stick up for em
posted by entropicamericana at 7:30 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Caucuses are inherently anti-democratic but the Iowa caucus do serve the purpose of allowing one state to basically do the job of determining how good a candidate can be at retail politics (holding hands and shaking babies, doing endless trips to small town diners to talk to salt of the earth types, etc) and because it has a lower bar on entry it possibly allows for more insurgent candidates to gain traction.

The caucus format isn't what does this in Iowa. It's the fact that Iowa is first. You could do all the same retail-politics stuff while ending it with a primary, and it would serve the same purpose while allowing people to vote if they can't take off an entire day from work and/or child care.
posted by Etrigan at 7:31 AM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


“Berned” by Bernie Sanders

So back up to this article... what this says, yet again, is that the Bernie campaign people were not ready for a truly national campaign. But we've known that, from the various Black Lives Matter protests last fall to how they've handled this last week in Nevada. By contrast, Hillary got all her ducks in a row from the beginning.

Perhaps we're seeing the consequences of a campaign (and a candidate) that's in way over their heads and lacks any way to save face -- and perhaps doesn't have to (or want to) since they can just burn it all down.

I do hope the Hillary campaign is working to give the Bernie campaign a way to save face, because if not....
posted by dw at 7:37 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


I despise the two front runners so very very much that I've simply stopped reading US politics. Yes, I know that's exactly what they are looking for - scorching the earth so there's no sign of intelligent life - but for my own sanity, I have to retreat.

Based on watching these primaries for some four decades now, I still think that Sanders has a chance - the front runner has never won a D primary in my whole existence (incumbents aside of course) and Hillary does seem to have a talent for massive fuckups. But it's still a long-shot. Pending such a stroke of good luck, I'm checked out of the US political scene until 2017 (and basically checked out of Facebook - I can't bring myself to open it and see all this Trump and Clinton).
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:41 AM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


By contrast, Hillary got all her ducks in a row from the beginning.

To be fair, she has had years and years of planning. I don't think (pure speculation) she would have run again unless she thought she had a very very good chance of winning. Once the election is past and the post-mortems come out, it will be fascinating to see what the dynamics were in Bernie's campaign as it shifted from "old man shouts at cloud" to viable runaway campaign. It does sound like this kind of underestimation of him happened on a much smaller scale in some of his early VT races. The dynamic here is just so different.
posted by sallybrown at 7:42 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


By the way, on caucuses? Oregon and Washington are politically very similar -- dense, highly liberal urban areas surrounded by lots of less dense, highly libertarian/conservative areas. Both have vote-by-mail.

Bernie finished with 74% of the delegates in Washington. In Oregon, he'll come in as high as 58%.

Now, you could argue that Oregon had a closed primary while Washington's are open so that might affect things, but Oregon's registration laws and affiliation change laws are pretty straightforward and open, and there was a lot of runway for independents to switch.

Regardless, an open primary in Washington would not have yielded a 74% yield for Bernie. Washington remains one of his highest net delegate pickups because of those caucuses. He would have done worse in Tuesday's primary, even if he won.
posted by dw at 7:45 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Or look at Nebraska. Bernie won the caucus handily; later, in the open voting, Clinton won. Why Nebraska had two elections is beyond me but it does show a pretty stark difference between caucus voters and regular voters.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:49 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


I despise the two front runners so very very much that I've simply stopped reading US politics. Yes, I know that's exactly what they are looking for - scorching the earth so there's no sign of intelligent life - but for my own sanity, I have to retreat.

I refuse to check out because it's not fair for the burden of engagement, paying attention, tracking what's said, following and discussing news, etc to fall on the people already most worried about the outcome, who don't have the privilege to check out because they are worried they'll be deported, or blocked from entering the country, or the like under a Trump presidency. There are people out there terrified for their lives and their families. So as much as I don't love the two front runners either, I suck it up and deal. The more people who tune out, the easier it is for Trump to normalize his poisonous stances.
posted by sallybrown at 7:52 AM on May 20, 2016 [19 favorites]


Or look at Nebraska. Bernie won the caucus handily; later, in the open voting, Clinton won. Why Nebraska had two elections is beyond me but it does show a pretty stark difference between caucus voters and regular voters.

The Nebraska caucus was on March 6, when Sanders was closer in the delegate count. Timing matters.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:52 AM on May 20, 2016


Caucuses are inherently anti-democratic but the Iowa caucus do serve the purpose of allowing one state to basically do the job of determining how good a candidate can be at retail politics (holding hands and shaking babies, doing endless trips to small town diners to talk to salt of the earth types, etc)

Metafilter: holding hands and shaking babies
posted by spoolian at 7:56 AM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


With Trump at the top of the ticket, the consequences of this election are bigger than any I have experienced in my lifetime. (I was less than two years old when Johnson ran against Goldwater--maybe that comes close.) So the fighting between Sanders and Clinton and between Sanders supports and Clinton supporters really, really scares me.

In 2008, I supported Clinton over Obama, but I voted for Obama in Pennsylvania, because by April was time to unite around the person who was going to win. Clinton should have conceded before she did. Her hanging on too long worried me, because I thought that her actions would hurt the Democrats' chances that year. But had McCain won, I think I think would at least have *had* a country when he left office. So I didn't have the fear that I have now for the future of the USA and indeed the entire world. (Trump with his finger on the button--frightening.)

Unfortunately for Clinton, her holding on so long against Obama and the encouragement she got for doing so from her most ardent supports now undercut arguments from her and her supporters that Sanders drop out.

Clinton eventually vigorously supported Obama. Is there perhaps a difference between her age then (60) and Sanders age now (74) in that she saw that she could have another chance at running and Sanders almost certainly will not? Clinton had a lot to lose by not being the team player in 2008. Maybe Sanders feels that at his age he has nothing to lose by "burning it all down."
posted by haiku warrior at 8:10 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


"In early 2005, Donald Trump explained to radio host Howard Stern that he had considered hosting a version of his show The Apprentice pitting black contestants vs. white ones."
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:13 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


What happened in Nevada:

The problem with this narrative is that it is alternately wholly skewed against or completely at odds to what independent observers documented about the process. Basically everyone who is not a Bernie supporter has presented a narrative very different from this one. Not to mention some of the facts in aforementioned narrative leave out large chunks of information--for example, when discussing the dismissed Sanders delegates it neglects to mention that 56 of those delegates were not even physically present, and that the credential committee approving delegate credentials was 50% Sanders supporters. When it talks about the approval of "temporary rules", it does not mention that the approval of "temporary rules" is not even the approval of rules--it's simply an acknowledgement that a set of "temporary rules" has been presented. The equivalent of saying "I received your letter" after someone sends you a letter.

--------

Also, are we seriously arguing the media has been biased in favor of Clinton? The same media that perpetuated Watergate, Vince Foster murder, 24/7/365 sperm-on-dress, BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi, EmailsOfDoom? The same email that relentlessly questions whether she is likeable enough, or too ambitious, or trustworthy, or God knows what else? The same media that has portrayed the Sanders/Clinton race as a horse race for the entire primary until the last week or so, despite the fact she pulled ahead in delegates and never lost the lead?
posted by schroedinger at 8:13 AM on May 20, 2016 [26 favorites]


With Trump at the top of the ticket, the consequences of this election are bigger than any I have experienced in my lifetime.

I mean, Trump scares the shit out of me, but your statement disregards that many presidents in the past 40 years (especially Reagan and W. Bush, IMHO) have had disastrous, deadly consequences for huge swaths of population.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:14 AM on May 20, 2016


Obama tried to trade away Social Security and failed only because the Republicans were so far gone into lunacy by then that they wouldn't take the deal, why should I think Clinton wouldn't do the same?

From her campaign site:
As president, she would:
- Fight any attempts to gamble seniors’ retirement security on the stock market through privatization.
- Oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.
- Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement age—an unfair idea that will particularly hurt the seniors who have worked the hardest throughout their lives.
- Oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.


She seems pretty clear on that.
posted by octothorpe at 8:15 AM on May 20, 2016 [11 favorites]


I mean, Trump scares the shit out of me, but your statement disregards that many presidents in the past 40 years (especially Reagan and W. Bush, IMHO) have had disastrous, deadly consequences for huge swaths of population.

Not if you believe the consequences will be even worse under Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 8:18 AM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


With Trump at the top of the ticket, the consequences of this election are bigger than any I have experienced in my lifetime.

I mean, Trump scares the shit out of me, but your statement disregards that many presidents in the past 40 years (especially Reagan and W. Bush, IMHO) have had disastrous, deadly consequences for huge swaths of population.


haiku warrior didn't say "the consequences of this election are big and none others have been".
posted by Etrigan at 8:19 AM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think I think would at least have *had* a country when he left office.

So long as he didn't have a heart attack and folksy dontchaknow ascended to the presidency.
posted by Talez at 8:20 AM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


Not if you believe the consequences will be even worse under Trump.

Right, I guess I just want people to remember that a lot of people are dead because of mistakes we have made in elections past.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:20 AM on May 20, 2016


I mean, Trump scares the shit out of me, but your statement disregards that many presidents in the past 40 years (especially Reagan and W. Bush, IMHO) have had disastrous, deadly consequences for huge swaths of population.

I don't think anyone is discounting the suffering these presidents have perpetuated. Just stating the country still exists. Obviously, "maintaining the existence of the thing you're in charge of" is like, the minimum possible bar for any leader and is in no way an indicator of leadership quality.

"In early 2005, Donald Trump explained to radio host Howard Stern that he had considered hosting a version of his show The Apprentice pitting black contestants vs. white ones."
“On The Apprentice there was a concept, okay, thrown out by some person, nine blacks against nine whites,” said Trump. “And it would be nine blacks against nine whites, all highly educated, very smart, strong, beautiful. Do you like it? Do you like it, Robin?” . . . Stern went on to ask Trump a series of questions. “Very dark blacks, or light-skinned blacks?” Stern asked. “Assortment,” Trump responded, “against whites.” When a laughing Quivers asked how many blondes, Trump added he wanted all nine whites to be blonde.
The Apprentice: RACE WAR!

How can one person be this terrible? Seriously, how?! Trump: the literal embodiment of the White Male Id.
posted by schroedinger at 8:22 AM on May 20, 2016 [11 favorites]


317, I agree that Reagan and Bush had disastrous consequences, but I didn't have the fear during the election that I have now. Perhaps it is because I have now seen how badly things can turn out that I am more fearful now. And Trump seems much worse than either of them did at this point in the campaign.
posted by haiku warrior at 8:22 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump added he wanted all nine whites to be blonde.

Apparently it was cut off early and he started talking about "Blue eyed fine aryan specimens".
posted by Talez at 8:23 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Apprentice: RACE WAR!

Survivor actually did this season. It's called Cook Islands. And the winner, Yul, went on to work for President Obama.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:24 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


God it's like the 1936 Olympics.
posted by sallybrown at 8:25 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


Bill Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to be VP. So is Obama.

Is Al Gore eligible?


Sure, he was only elected president once.
posted by Gelatin at 8:29 AM on May 20, 2016 [46 favorites]


Also, are we seriously arguing the media has been biased in favor of Clinton?

It's complicated.

But for most Sanders supporters, there's the troubling question of corporate interest. When major media has financial interests in one candidate over the other, it does tend to raise eyebrows.
posted by iamck at 8:29 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maybe Sanders feels that at his age he has nothing to lose by "burning it all down."

Maybe he doesn't but the millions of PoC, LGBT and women who would be collateral damage for a generation to a Trump presidency sure do. Which is why his actions since March 15th when he lost OH and FL by huge margins, and effectively the nomination, have infuriated me.
posted by chris24 at 8:29 AM on May 20, 2016 [19 favorites]


octothorpe And Obama promised, on live national television, that he would not merely vote against telecom immunity, but that he would personally filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity.

Then he voted for telecom immunity.

Similarly, in 2011 Obama said this in his State of the Union address:
“To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.”
And in 2014 he was offering up cuts to Social Security as a bargaining position despite not only his pledge not to, but despite the fact that the Republicans didn't even **ASK** him to. He just volunteered, all on his own, to gut Social Security.

So I don't put a lot of faith in Clinton's solemn promise to leave Social Security alone. I've seen that before in Obama and I've seen that believing that sort of thing makes me feel like a sucker.

There will be a long stalemate, maybe even a government shutdown looming, and I'm quite confident that out of desperation to get something done she'll offer up Social Security.

I don't even particularly think she's lying when she says she won't cut Social Security, I don't think Obama was lying in 2011. I don't think either is deliberately plotting to slash Social Security for grins.

But I think that her campaign promises that she's the Democrat who can, despite the Republicans holding the House and likely the Senate, get things done are completely unmoored from reality. Absolutely anything she wants that is to the left of Glenn Beck will simply not happen. Congress is going to send her nothing but a constant stream of attempts to repeal the ACA, budgets that completely eliminate funding for both the ACA and Planned Parenthood, etc.

And in desperation to get something, anything, done there's Social Security glistening like the ultimate bargaining chip. And she'll use it because the alternative is watching the Republicans hold the entire nation hostage by gridlock and I don't think she, or Obama, or possibly even Sanders, can stand that. They're politicians because they're active and want to accomplish things, not simply warm a chair and hold the status quo.
posted by sotonohito at 8:44 AM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


"In early 2005, Donald Trump explained to radio host Howard Stern that he had considered hosting a version of his show The Apprentice pitting black contestants vs. white ones."

Trump takes credit for everything, but I wonder if that was really his idea or something the production team kicked around for a while and then rejected. Because another Mark Burnett show, Survivor, did try dividing tribes by racial ethnicity in their 13th season: Survivor: Cook Islands. That aired in 2006, so it probably would have happened in 2005. They segregated the tribes into four ethnic groups: African Americans, Caucasian-Americans, Asian-Americans and Latino-Americans. The tribes merged quickly, less than a third of the way into the season, eliminating the divide. But the show was thoroughly criticized for it.

On preview, I see roomthreeseventeen beat me to it. :)
posted by zarq at 8:45 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


zarq, I was told on Facebook it was Burnett's idea.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:48 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


By "white dudes" are you referring to Jews? Because if so, most of us are depressingly familiar with being the targets of antisemitic hatred both on the internet and off it. Directly or indirectly.
Huh. That's interesting. I haven't been, and neither have any of the Jewish people I know. And the victim here expressed total shock at being subjected to sentiments that he thought had died out generations ago.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:49 AM on May 20, 2016


I asked myself a question before the 2012 election; where's the line? What would a Democrat have to do to just absolutely disqualify themselves from my vote?

I was reading a lot about the drone war, and the economic collapse of '08, and the incompetency and short-sightedness of how both were handled were boggling to me.

And then it just got worse from there--banks kept consolidating, and look, we're back to banks being acknowledged to be too big to fail, just within the last month. And we are still insisting that any "military aged" male killed in a drone strike must've been a viable target. And we still do double-tap strikes that kill rescuers. It's unforgivable to me. That's so obviously a war crime I can't even look fellow leftists/liberals in the eye when they try to make excuses for it. My bile rises and the disgust I feel for the lack of empathy just makes me feel misanthropic. When my own Mom, a dedicated Hillary volunteer, can't offer anything but "I don't think it'll be that bad/it's not that bad" when I know it's that bad, I read it in the damn paper, I just swallow it and don't talk about it because I hate to think less of her for her unwillingness or inability to just admit that it sucks and it's a terrible thing we're forced to accept because nobody with any power in this country seems to have a problem with it. So I just don't talk about it so I can still have some kind of respect for her as my mother, as a source of guidance.

So that was my line. It was in '12 when I voted for Stein, and it'll probably be again in '16, when I vote for Stein.

It has to matter, something has to matter enough that you can say "Nope, even if the other obvious choice is worse, I won't sign my name to this."

You have to know what that is. If it's not dead Pakistani kids who never learned to read, shit, I got nothing for you. But at least be honest with yourself with what the line is.

So, to the question earlier about "What would Hillary have to do to win you to her side?"; I don't think she could. I think she's more hawkish than Obama, who was already too hawkish. I could easily see her deporting more people than he did (and he's already beaten GWB on that account) and I can easily see her getting us into another war in the Middle East. I just can't have any part of that, especially when the efforts to right the problems here at home seem like tokens that must include handouts to the source of the problems they're trying to address; see the massive infusion of capital into the main source of health care costs, the insurance companies, that the ACA created.

It sucks, because I realize I'm just withdrawing, but on the other hand, it's forced me into a position of mindfulness of the immediacies of my own life, to treasure the little things that I have right here and right now, because I have no faith that there are any real positive outcomes from this election. It just means more death overseas at our hands, more half-measures at home, and further splitting of our nation, and nobody is better off, and nobody is happier, except for a few people at the top who can buy their way out of any of the problems the rest of us have to wrestle with.
posted by turntraitor at 8:51 AM on May 20, 2016 [18 favorites]


So I don't put a lot of faith in Clinton's solemn promise to leave Social Security alone. I've seen that before in Obama and I've seen that believing that sort of thing makes me feel like a sucker.

So your argument is just that you think she's lying? Why do you think that Sanders is telling the truth then? Or anyone?
posted by octothorpe at 8:53 AM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


zarq, I was told on Facebook it was Burnett's idea.

Ah! That makes sense, then.

I always assumed it was a poorly thought out response to complaints from the public about the lack of diversity on the show.
posted by zarq at 8:54 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


> What would a Democrat have to do to just absolutely disqualify themselves from my vote?

That's fair enough - each of us must have their own line, and we each have to live with the consequences. Even if it wasn't their fault at all - I'm not blaming them - I bet a lot of Naderites in Florida now wish they'd voted for Gore.

> I realize I'm just withdrawing

Yeah, that's the problem, isn't it. When President Trump is inaugurated, this sort of thing will be banned outright. Participation will be mandatory, and yuuge.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:57 AM on May 20, 2016


octothorpe, sotonohito said this in the same comment:

I don't even particularly think she's lying when she says she won't cut Social Security, I don't think Obama was lying in 2011. I don't think either is deliberately plotting to slash Social Security for grins.
posted by futz at 8:59 AM on May 20, 2016


Huh. That's interesting. I haven't been, and neither have any of the Jewish people I know.

Consider yourself lucky.

By contrast, most of my friends and family members who are Jewish have experienced antisemitism in one form or another.

For WTF-ness, there's nothing quite like having someone ask, earnestly and innocently, if they can see your horns.

And the victim here expressed total shock at being subjected to sentiments that he thought had died out generations ago.

Yeah. Clearly, he was wrong.
posted by zarq at 8:59 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


So I don't put a lot of faith in Clinton's solemn promise to leave Social Security alone. I've seen that before in Obama and I've seen that believing that sort of thing makes me feel like a sucker.

What makes you think Sanders will be any different, though?
posted by schroedinger at 8:59 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't see where Obama was ever gutting Social Security. There was some talk of switching to a 'Chained' CPI rather than the CPI currently in use and the cutting of Social Security SSI benefits for those receiving unemployment. Both were just talk. Did I miss something?
posted by readery at 9:00 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


sonohito explicitly states that they don't believe Clinton is lying per se:

"I don't even particularly think she's lying when she says she won't cut Social Security, I don't think Obama was lying in 2011. I don't think either is deliberately plotting to slash Social Security for grins.

But I think that her campaign promises that she's the Democrat who can, despite the Republicans holding the House and likely the Senate, get things done are completely unmoored from reality. "

It is that the desire to "do things" will lead to the triangulating keep-cutting-the-pie-in-half-until-it's-crumbs strategies we've already seen from Pres. Obama.

Remember sequestration? Sure, some good things happened during this administration, particularly in the first two years when there was a Democratic(ish) majority. But the last 6 years have seen less and less funding for all the important things that the federal government does.

The way you break that cycle is with big ideas that you can sell as a narrative to the people. That is what I believe Sec. Clinton does not get.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:00 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


The way you break that cycle is with

voting in midterm elections???

big ideas that you can sell as a narrative to the people.

ah
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:02 AM on May 20, 2016 [17 favorites]


Chained CPI, as far as I understand it, is basically recalculating downward the formulas for cost-of-living increases. So everybody gets to claim that they saved social security and didn't cut benefits, but inflation does it for them over time.

It's the opposite of what Democrats are always pushing for with the minimum wage, tying them strongly to COL.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:03 AM on May 20, 2016


It has to matter, something has to matter enough that you can say "Nope, even if the other obvious choice is worse, I won't sign my name to this."


This. A million times.
posted by iamck at 9:03 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


voting in midterm elections???

I took that as a given; I've voted in every primary and general election since I moved back to the States. But I'm not the person the Democrats need to reach out to; they need to reach out to the folks that don't vote. And saying "hey, you should vote you bad non-voters you!" is not a great strategy for that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:06 AM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


TT, if you live in a swing state you will be throwing your vote away. It's unfortunate that you are so put off. But look no further than the Supreme Court to see the consequences. Imagine another Alito and another Roberts instead of a Kagan and a Sotomayor. If Obama cannot get his choice through the Senate, the next president will appoint at least one, and possibly three justices.
posted by haiku warrior at 9:09 AM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


I would love to know a good way to get people voting in 'boring' elections and I admit that I do not have good answers or ideas for how to accomplish that. I do think that telling people over and over that the system is rigged, corrupt, etc is megacounterproductive to achieving that outcome tho
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:10 AM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


I could easily see her deporting more people than he did

I don't think that will be true. Trump's entire platform and now the Republican Party's entire stance is anti-immigration. After this election, I don't think there's any turning back to the status quo. And even if we pass some form of comprehensive reform, there's going to be another at least another four to eight years of trying to stop Republicans from trying to veto it and just people in public harassing people who look Hispanic (or whatever future minority that's unpopular) because of a suspicion they may not be legally here. It's proven with health care, abortion, and same-sex marriage that if the other side is defeated through federal action, they will just regroup, retrench, and fight on.
posted by FJT at 9:10 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


TT, if you live in a swing state you will be throwing your vote away.

You can argue all day about what people should do in swing states, but I don't think it's fair to ever tell someone they are throwing their carefully thought out vote away.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:10 AM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


and nobody is better off

the Muslims who are not banned from the U.S.
the people who are not rounded up and deported, splitting their families apart
the would-be victims of less regulated guns
women who maintain the right to choose because there's not a Republican in office when Kennedy or RBG leaves the Court
people who maintain all sorts of legal protections like the right to bring class action suit and their fourth amendment rights, for the same reason
the people of color and mentally ill who are not shot by an even further emboldened police
the refugees who are not turned away
the children who aren't stripped of food and care provided by the state
the people with disabilities whose funding can be taken away
the consumers whose market protections against corporate malfeasance can be ignored at the direction of the Executive
the citizens who rely on the threat and force of the Civil Rights Division to protect their constantly-under-attack rights

You may think things are so bad already that they can't get worse. If so, you are very, very wrong.
posted by sallybrown at 9:12 AM on May 20, 2016 [55 favorites]


It has to matter, something has to matter enough that you can say "Nope, even if the other obvious choice is worse, I won't sign my name to this."

The issues matter. But your name doesn't matter. Your conscience doesn't matter. People matter. Children matter. Lives matter. Black lives matter. And by not doing everything to protect those things, in order to protect the value of your name, you are, I am very much afraid, doing something wrong. Is your name worth the life of even a single child? Because by letting the greater evil prevail, to preserve your name, I believe you are saying it's worth much more.
posted by howfar at 9:15 AM on May 20, 2016 [32 favorites]


There is a very strange dual tendency to say "Trump would not be as bad as he is promising" and, at the same time, "Clinton would not be as good as she is promising." (I feel it too.) I don't know why, but I see it everywhere.
posted by sallybrown at 9:17 AM on May 20, 2016 [12 favorites]


Hopeful/cynical evocation of reversion to the mean?
posted by maudlin at 9:19 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


I would love to know a good way to get people voting in 'boring' elections and I admit that I do not have good answers or ideas for how to accomplish that. I do think that telling people over and over that the system is rigged, corrupt, etc is megacounterproductive to achieving that outcome tho

Obviously despair is not a great motivator either although I do think that things are pretty rigged on a number of levels (including within the Democratic party). Originally, though, the Sanders message was a pretty bog-standard leftist critique/narrative with the call-to-action of "vote for Bernie and get these issues on the agenda". (It later became "holy shit we might actually pull this off" and then the dog ran squarely into the car and is currently limping away somewhat dazedly.)

But there was a coherent message, a narrative which was of course simplified but also which is reasonably accurate and which was compelling and which placed a vote for Sen. Sanders as action item #1 toward accomplishing that vision. If Sec. Clinton has a compelling narrative to her campaign I do not know what it is. "Vote for me, I'm not a dumpster fire" is not great although it will probably win her the election (I hope).

Hard-working, competent lovable nerd is sort of where I hope she goes? Ultimately I do agree with many commenters in these threads that part of Sec. Clinton's issue is that she is "a woman caught in the act of asking for power". I'm not sure how she threads that needle.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:22 AM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


It has to matter, something has to matter enough that you can say "Nope, even if the other obvious choice is worse, I won't sign my name to this."

That line for me is with domestic issues, rather than foreign policy. I'm against fearmongering and warmongering. I'm definitely against Presidents and Congress waging unnecessary and useless wars. But I'm far more invested in whether or not women have a right to control their own bodies and have access to abortion and health care without outside interference. I'm far more invested in the next President not running the economy into the ground by defaulting on our debt, that they will not stereotype and vilify entire groups of people and spur mobs to violence, and that they will be honest and realistic about what they will and will not be able to accomplish. I'm much more interested in focusing on a slew of domestic issues, including gun control, funding for all levels of education and increasing access to less expensive health care for everyone, then I am about some other issues.

You have to know what that is. If it's not dead Pakistani kids who never learned to read, shit, I got nothing for you.

That's fine, but it's important to note that reasonable people can in fact care about 'dead Pakistani kids' while simultaneously focusing on other priorities. There's nothing wrong with placing "Supports Drone Warfare" on a spectrum of what we do and don't find acceptable -- and voting for a candidate because even though they might support policies we disagree with, we think they'll be a net positive for the country overall. Or at least compared to their competition.
posted by zarq at 9:23 AM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


There is a very strange dual tendency to say "Trump would not be as bad as he is promising" and, at the same time, "Clinton would not be as good as she is promising." (I feel it too.) I don't know why, but I see it everywhere.

Democrats have a long and prominent track record of seeking compromises even when they shouldn't.

Trump is enough of a goddamned cartoon character that it's hard to take anything he says seriously, even when the consequences if we don't are dire.
posted by delfin at 9:24 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


The issues matter. But your name doesn't matter.

I agree, it doesn't matter to anyone else. But I have to accept that if I vote for Clinton, some kids in Waziristan will be missing limbs, relatives, and the ability to have any kind of meaningful existence, just because of a trick of geography, and a wrongheaded belief that somehow drones are "fixing" a problem. I still have to live with myself if I do that, and no amount of people clicking + on a MeFi post because I logicked my way out of not somehow being responsible for the actions of the person I voted for won't get me to sleep any faster at night.

So how do I calculate?

I agree black lives matter. I agree all those things matter. But do they matter more than those kids? Do I have to make that choice? I don't think I do. I think it's morally acceptable to just say if the vote means I get dead kids and more wealth inequality and more of what we're already getting, then I'm not casting that vote. I'm still casting a vote, and it's a vote that is just as meaningful to me, and my conscience. I'm not going to look down on Clinton voters; I just can't support what that vote means anymore.
posted by turntraitor at 9:25 AM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


how your vote makes you personally feel versus the big picture outcome of your vote seems to be what is at play here
posted by defenestration at 9:28 AM on May 20, 2016 [12 favorites]


If Sec. Clinton has a compelling narrative to her campaign I do not know what it is. "Vote for me, I'm not a dumpster fire" is not great although it will probably win her the election (I hope).

The narrative has struck me more as "vote for me, I'm smart and experienced and I know what I'm doing and I have hella detailed policy ideas" which, admittedly, does not quite grab you by the glands as forcefully as MAGA, but it's a pitch I can certainly feel totally OK about getting behind.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:29 AM on May 20, 2016 [16 favorites]


The other side of that equation:

If you vote for Clinton, people in foreign countries are going to get droned, bombed, maimed and killed. If you vote for Trump, people in foreign countries are going to get droned, bombed, maimed and killed.

We're Americans. It's what we do. It's in our blood and DNA.
posted by delfin at 9:31 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


You have to know what that is. If it's not dead Pakistani kids who never learned to read, shit, I got nothing for you. But at least be honest with yourself with what the line is.

It's a big country in a big world and the line that runs through it isn't always straight or cleanly delineated. For me, I look at the past and always see a lot of examples where individuals or people see bad stuff being done to them or in general by other groups that hold the power or even by groups they work with or in. But, they still try and sometimes something good happens. But that's just me.
posted by FJT at 9:33 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


We're Americans. It's what we do. It's in our blood and DNA.

There's not a genetic mutation that happens when you get US citizenship that makes you bomb brown people.

We have choices.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:34 AM on May 20, 2016 [20 favorites]


If you vote for Clinton, people in foreign countries are going to get droned, bombed, maimed and killed. If you vote for Trump, people in foreign countries are going to get droned, bombed, maimed and killed.

At least Clinton will do it with a modicum of restraint and will feel some sort of empathy for the carnage that's so politically correctly called "collateral damage". Trump on the other hand hasn't ruled out turning parts of the middle east to glass.
posted by Talez at 9:34 AM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


I see my vote as a strategic tool, not a declaration of my principles.

I will not let perfect be the enemy of good when so much is at stake.
posted by defenestration at 9:36 AM on May 20, 2016 [44 favorites]


I've been thinking about this comment from prize bull octorok a few threads back:

I think there's some philosophical fault lines between people who think any/all candidates need to earn their votes and people who have essentially pre-pledged their votes to the best option on the table, or even just the least worst option. A sort of aspirational/utilitarian divide. idk. But it jumps out at me when people talk about their votes as a thing to be earned, cause I really don't see my vote as a favor or boon I'm granting to the candidate who shows themselves to be worthy of it, it's a tool I use to try and secure my own interests. Not saying my view is the objectively correct one, just noting the difference

This is a really significant difference and it's the root of a lot of the arguments I see here. It's hard for me (as a utilitarian tool type voter) to understand where someone like turntraitor is coming from. I think it's less about seeing a vote as a favor or a boon, and more of a, I dunno, moral identification with the candidate?
posted by theodolite at 9:37 AM on May 20, 2016 [22 favorites]


It's magical thinking to imagine that any vote you cast in a U.S. Presidential election will stop all kids from being murdered, whether Tamir Rice or a child in Pakistan hit by a bomb. One hopes that casting the right vote helps make sure that fewer kids die. By voting you are necessarily making a choice, just as you are by not voting. It's a luxury, a privilege to imagine you don't have to compromise your principles, and don't have to do the emotional labor of feeling bad about yourself because you caved on something you cared about to help stop a greater evil from coming to pass.

You think the rest of us don't know or care about drones, and dead children, and humiliating abdication of our constitutional principles? Or is it that our spines aren't stiff enough?
posted by sallybrown at 9:38 AM on May 20, 2016 [31 favorites]


votes are like favorites, different people use them in different ways and that is ok
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:38 AM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


votes are like favorites, different people use them in different ways and that is ok

Yes but favorites don't exactly decide the leader of the free world. Best you can do with those is suck up to cortex.
posted by Talez at 9:40 AM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


Wow, here is a thing about US politics that I did not know: The president is exempt from rules that executive-branch employees can't participate "personally and substantially" in things that affect their own financial or business affairs. In other words, presidents don't HAVE to put their assets in blind trusts; they don't even have to stop running their businesses:
In 2012, Mitt Romney placed his complex private-equity investments into a blind trust, to assure the public that their president would not be influenced by private financial incentives. Trump, by contrast, plans to cede control of his diverse holdings to his immediate family members, and the Donald has never been one to delegate — this is a billionaire who does his own publicity.

If President Trump decides he can’t trust the kids to watch the shop, there’s little anyone could do to stop him from effectively running his company and country at the same time. American law bars regular Executive-branch employees from participating “personally and substantially” in any government matter that could affect their own financial interests. But, incredibly, the president is exempted from that rule. According to CNBC, Trump would be within his legal rights to remain his company’s chief executive, even while serving as America’s commander-in-chief. At that point, the only thing that could restrain Trump from putting his financial interests ahead of the public good would be his own sense of shame.
Apparently back in 2006 he was pulling for a housing market crash so he could make bank on others' misery.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:40 AM on May 20, 2016 [21 favorites]


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

Ceterum censeo Trumpo esse delendam.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:48 AM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


By contrast, most of my friends and family members who are Jewish have experienced antisemitism in one form or another.
The writers don't say they've never experienced antisemitism before. They say they've never experienced antisemitism like this before. (Julia Ioffe said she had when her family lived in Russia, but not in the US.) I have never received a call from a coffin-maker because someone contacted them and said I would be needing their services. Maybe you have, but if so, I don't think that's typical.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:49 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


the people who are not rounded up and deported, splitting their families apart
the refugees who are not turned away
the children who aren't stripped of food and care provided by the state


*offer not valid in all areas; Central American child refugees will be deported to send a message.
posted by indubitable at 9:57 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think voting is a moral act, but I strongly disagree that a person is culpable for every action of a candidate they voted for. The implication of that logic is that you should never vote (or always vote for hopeless third party protest candidates), because every single president of the United States is going to be in charge of a country that bombs civilians and deports people and imprisons thousands and does all kinds of other terrible things. And even if you don't vote, your taxes pay for it.
posted by theodolite at 9:58 AM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm sort of sympathetic to the voting as a moral act or endorsement viewpoint. I don't let it decide my vote, even here in Texas I'll be voting Clinton, not Stein, but I'll also be feeling a bit icky about the drone wars I know will continue and expand under Clinton. I do feel that what America does reflects on me, I felt deeply ashamed by Junior's presidency when speaking to foreign friends.

And I feel shame and hate and rage churning in my gut when I contemplate the evils that will be done by my nation in the coming years.

But I also fee a deep obligation to do the least harmful thing, and clearly that's working as hard as I can to get Clinton elected because Trump is so awful that each day I'm newly startled and horrified that the Republican party has not splintered and fallen apart by his nomination; and I am terrified by what it means that things have gotten so bad that upwards of 40% of Americans think Trump would be a good pick for President.

So even though I'm sympathetic to the idea that voting for Clinton means morally siding with her, or taking responsibility for the children she will murder with drones, I ultimately have to chose pragmatism.
posted by sotonohito at 10:08 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think it's morally acceptable to just say if the vote means I get dead kids and more wealth inequality and more of what we're already getting, then I'm not casting that vote.

What are you views on the "Trolley Problem"?
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?
In essence, I think your argument comes down to defending option 1. I think that view, without more, is ethically problematic. It (I think unjustifiably) privileges the personal experience of the choosing agent over that of the people on the tracks.
posted by howfar at 10:08 AM on May 20, 2016 [21 favorites]


By the way, on caucuses? Oregon and Washington are politically very similar -- dense, highly liberal urban areas surrounded by lots of less dense, highly libertarian/conservative areas. Both have vote-by-mail.

Bernie finished with 74% of the delegates in Washington. In Oregon, he'll come in as high as 58%.


Some additional numbers that seem kind of relevant here: over 625,000 voters--about 2/3 of Oregon's 950,000+ registered Democrats--voted in the Oregon primary this week (well after the race was realistically--if not mathematically--over) to decide the distribution of 59 delegates. That's a bit over 10,000 voters per delegate.

In Washington, a much larger state which has about twice the number of registered voters, the Democratic caucuses took place in late March, when the race was substantially more competitive. Only about 230,000 participated to decide the distribution of 101 delegates. That's a bit under 2300 voters per delegate.

Thanks to the caucus process, a Washington Democrat's vote was worth almost 5 times as much as an Oregon Democrat's vote.

Seems legit.
posted by dersins at 10:11 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


What are you views on the "Trolley Problem"?
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move.


god that was the worst episode of Mr Rogers
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:16 AM on May 20, 2016 [54 favorites]


Oh no now I'm reading it in his voice
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:19 AM on May 20, 2016 [14 favorites]


"Well, at least I didn't kill that one person when my inaction ensured that those other five people died."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:22 AM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


That fact that the trolley problem is even something we have to debate is what's wrong with this entire election. Outlaw trolleys.
posted by cell divide at 10:23 AM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


Washington Post dug up some 1978/79 tax returns Trump filed in the course of a casino license application. Guess how much he paid in taxes in those years! Here's a hint: the ancient Greeks debated whether this number even existed
posted by theodolite at 10:27 AM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't think you can even apply the reduction in complexity of the trolly problem here. The biggest issue in the trolly problem is that, while you're engaging in this calculus of reducing the total death toll by 4, you are never the less causing the death of that one very specific person. Absent your action, that person would continue to live. It is more accurate to say that when you pull that lever you are saving 5 people and murdering one.

A presidential contest between Clinton and Trump almost certainly doesn't mean a new and unique death if we're talking about foreign wars. There's every indication that Trump would be equally bad in all the same ways and additionally worse in others. If he was some sort of staunch protectionist you might have a real A vs B situation - he might engage in reckless policies that would cause other different problems but reduce troops on the ground and drones in the air over other spots. But there's no sign of that or any reason to think that the congress is going to be any different on these foreign issues.
posted by phearlez at 10:28 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


fixed guideway transit is inherently corrupt

free hovercraft for all
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:29 AM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


Seriously though, thank you howfar for framing it in terms of the Trolley Problem. I think that may be the single best explanation for why I think tactical voting is morally imperative.

I don't think anyone in the various Trolley Problems would feel great about their decisions, they're designed to be morally tough and no matter what you chose someone is going to die. If I were put into a Trolley Problem in the real world I'd doubtless feel awful about my choice. But that doesn't make it wrong, just icky.
posted by sotonohito at 10:35 AM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


1) Chained CPI is fucked up and bullshit. Both SS benefits and minimum wage need to be tied directly to a Senator's total compensation.

2) Turd Sandwich 2016!
posted by j_curiouser at 10:35 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


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


Their ages are a bit irrelevant. Any member of the Court can leave at any time, if they need to. Or someone who is not yet 80 can die out of the blue and leave us with 8 members on the Court for god knows how long.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:36 AM on May 20, 2016


Added to this election season's list of problems I never expected to have: I hit the paywall limit at the WaPo.
posted by stolyarova at 10:37 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Any member of the Court can leave at any time, if they need to.

Yeah, but if they know they'll be replaced with someone they seriously disagree with, they never, ever will
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:39 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


I hit the paywall limit at the WaPo.

private browsing is your friend
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:39 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Both SS benefits and minimum wage need to be tied directly to a Senator's total compensation.

eh, most Senators are already fabulously wealthy, with a few exceptions like Joe Biden (when he was a Senator) and Bernie Sanders.
posted by indubitable at 10:40 AM on May 20, 2016


How you decide to vote and what variables to use and all that makes the process something like a Zen koan to me. You have only so much information to work with. You have multiple possible answers to the situation and none of them are the "right" one. There is no definitive correct response.
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:40 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Their ages are a bit irrelevant.

Yes, all men (and women) are mortal (and fickle). But older people are more likely to die or get too ill to work in any given year. Ask any actuary.

Added to this election season's list of problems I never expected to have: I hit the paywall limit at the WaPo.

Right click and open a private window/incognito session. Or squeeze a fresh lemon into your eyes. (Can we call this the Lemon Pledge versus the Trolley Problem?)
posted by maudlin at 10:40 AM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah, but if they know they'll be replaced with someone they seriously disagree with, they never, ever will

I don't agree with this at all. I think most of the justices would put their spouse or seriously ill child before the Court.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:41 AM on May 20, 2016


room, true, but ages do matter because several Justices are approaching their statistically likely age of death. And RBG is seriously ill, the fact that she's lived this long is astounding and expecting her to last another four years is wishful thinking. I still maintain she should have retired two years ago to give Obama a chance to replace her, she's a great justice and I'd miss having her on the Court but risking her replacement coming from a Republican is, I think, irresponsible of her.
posted by sotonohito at 10:41 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


I expect if Hillary's elected and the Senate settles out as expected EBG and possibly Souter will announce their retirements in April 2017.
posted by dw at 10:45 AM on May 20, 2016


RBG has been very clear on her calculus: she does not believe that Obama could get a justice as liberal as she is appointed, and so she feels the best thing to do is to remain on the Court as long as she is physically and mentally able to do the work. It's a fair judgement and she is, well, good at judging things.

I imagine her calculus might change if it appears that a Republican the small-fingered dumpster fire looks to be winning. Obama could do a double-recess-appointment, I'm sure the Republicans would howl but at that point I think Obama might not GAF at all.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:46 AM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


I expect if Hillary's elected and the Senate settles out as expected RBG and possibly Souter will announce their retirements in April 2017.

I mean, maybe? If she's elected with the reddest Congress in history, we're down to 5 justices then?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:47 AM on May 20, 2016


You know what would be really weird, is if there was a Supreme Court vacancy for like three months already and everyone just kind of stopped talking about it
posted by theodolite at 10:48 AM on May 20, 2016 [64 favorites]


I expect if Hillary's elected and the Senate settles out as expected EBG and possibly Souter will announce their retirements in April 2017.

Do you mean Breyer? Souter retired in 2009.
posted by cjelli at 10:51 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ask any actuary.

You're right about older people having an increased risk of death and this is an incredibly pedantic correction, but there are two major actuarial organizations in the United States: the Society of Actuaries (which does life and health) and the Casualty Actuarial Society (which does property and casualty). The SOA is bigger than the CAS, but technically it wouldn't be any actuary. Just the life & health ones.
posted by stolyarova at 10:51 AM on May 20, 2016 [12 favorites]


That is exactly the sort of answer I presume an actuary would give. Thank you.
posted by zachlipton at 10:55 AM on May 20, 2016 [23 favorites]


Do you mean Breyer? Souter retired in 2009.

I meant Breyer. Can't tell the SCOTUS without a scorecard, it seems.
posted by dw at 10:57 AM on May 20, 2016


Is it weird that I literally teared up thinking about RBG dying?
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:59 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


zachlipton, technically it's my husband who's the actuary, not me. ;)
posted by stolyarova at 11:00 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


I have never received a call from a coffin-maker because someone contacted them and said I would be needing their services. Maybe you have,

No. Look, no offense but I really don't have any interest in playing "antisemitism Olympics" with you.

You said something that really bothered me last night -- it read to me as 'maybe now those Jewish white dudes will have greater understanding/empathy for women who have had to deal with Gamergate harassment.' That felt very WTF. As if we're somehow incapable of being properly horrified by Gamergate until it happens to us personally, or worse, that the antisemitic harassment might possibly have a positive outcome, by "changing the discussion."

If you meant otherwise, then fine. Whatever. But that's how it came across to me, and I said something because I found it unpleasant to see those sentiments being expressed here. I don't want to play 'whose been through the worst antisemitism' with you. Or 'does awful antisemitism even exist anymore?' It's not an abstract discussion. It's not fun.
posted by zarq at 11:01 AM on May 20, 2016 [14 favorites]


That is exactly the sort of answer I presume an actuary would give.

Well, actuary...
posted by dersins at 11:01 AM on May 20, 2016 [11 favorites]


The assimilated middle- and upper-class Jews of fin-de-siecle Vienna and Budapest believed antisemitism was a gauche and fading anachronism, maybe a problem in the shtetls and to the East but not a significant part of their lives in the cultured and relatively diverse cities.
posted by theodolite at 11:08 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]




massive sigh of relief
posted by stolyarova at 11:20 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


You said something that really bothered me last night -- it read to me as 'maybe now those Jewish white dudes will have greater understanding/empathy for women who have had to deal with Gamergate harassment.' That felt very WTF. As if we're somehow incapable of being properly horrified by Gamergate until it happens to us personally, or worse, that the antisemitic harassment might possibly have a positive outcome, by "changing the discussion."

Zarq, I hear you, and I don't disagree with the WTFness of that reading. A subtext that I took away, and now that I re-read the comment I honestly don't know where I got it, because it really isn't even in there is more like: "maybe now the harassment people always dismiss because they don't see it will be more obvious to everyone." And then ArbitraryAndCapricious tied the antisemitism to the broader harassment of women online and GamerGate.

I think there's a fair question whether this kind of antisemitism can or should be linked with GamerGate harassment. On the one hand, both appear to come out of the same online trolling urge and may well involve some of the same cast of characters. Bullies seek to push their victims' buttons, and antisemitism is an excellent way to do that. On the other hand, the pro-Trump antisemitism online is inevitably linked through its symbolism, or just blatantly stated, with centuries of events that have resulted in the mass murder of millions of people. Without taking anything away from the serious harm that GamerGate harassment has done, equating the two feels problematic to me.

This kind of antisemitism feels very real and terrifying to me in a way that the usual wink-wink, nudge-nudge money/power/control the media stuff never has.
posted by zachlipton at 11:23 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders probably isn't Trump or even Clinton rich but he's still rich by any real standard. 2014 is the only year he has released tax information. For this year he reported joint income of about $200,000 most of it from his Senate salary. However until recently his wife worked full time at jobs which have reported salaries of over $150,000/year. On top of that his wife received a $200,000 severance package when she was terminated from her last position. So their joint income maybe have been closer to $400,000/year. For 2014 he paid an effective tax rate of 13.5%, which is actually lower than Mitt Romney paid. Also keep in mind that many of the ordinary expenses of life don't come out of his pocket (many of his meals, travel, etc).

In terms of assets has stock / mutual fund investments valued at between $200,000-800,000 based on Senate filings. We also know that he owns real estate in Vermont and DC which includes two homes and some rental property. Real estate holdings are not subject to normal Senate disclosure rules, but reportedly he owns a townhouse on Capital Hill which is now probably valued at over $1 million and a house in Burlington valued at $320,000. He also owns at least one condo which he rents out. It has also been reported that he has some rural property in Vermont that may entail several hundred acres at this point (reports online seem to indicate 85-600 acres). On top of this he has a Congressional pension which is a pretty hefty asset vs the normal retirement packages.
posted by humanfont at 11:26 AM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


Someone asked about Clinton winning over Bernie or Busters upthread, and I wanted to answer since the past year has been a constant conversation between my wife and I about trying to come around and vote for Hillary.

My wife is very progressive and die hard Bernie, I'm more center/right, but gave up on the Republican party years ago. Bernie was the best option left on the table for me. Besides policy issues, I deeply care about the character and ideals of candidates (especially presidents/governors where the job is not just creating/voting on laws). I want my leaders to follow the Cincinnatus ideal. Leadership should be taken for service, not power (it should now be obvious why I gave up on the republican party years ago).

Taking big money speakers fees, so much political power being kept in one family, having a family foundation (that's takes millions from foreign governments), "Hillary for America", "I'm with her". Those are all things that make me want to puke. Her recent pivot towards being anti trump actually sits much better with me ("Love trumps hate"). I will also be looking to see who she picks for VP and other members of her team. I've sort of given up on her caring more about service than power, but I'm hoping her VP might not.

My wife will be looking at how she treats the most vulnerable of society. Will she pivot towards the center or be pulled more left by Bernie. We won't be voting for trump or sitting out, but would consider third party. Our state doesn't matter much anyway.
posted by derivation at 11:26 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


ArbitraryAndCapricious tied the antisemitism to the broader harassment of women online and GamerGate.

It's the last gasp of power for the angry white males who feel like they have to be higher than someone, anyone on the ladder of society, and they'll step on any faces they can to do it.
posted by stolyarova at 11:27 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


derivation, if you haven't already seen in, you might be interested in this article about Hillary's "love and kindness" philosophy. I share a lot of your concerns still, but it was a view of Hillary I hadn't seen.
posted by sallybrown at 11:33 AM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


"I'm with her" makes you want to puke? That's about as anodyne a campaign slogan as I've ever heard.
posted by angrycat at 11:33 AM on May 20, 2016 [14 favorites]


also, my personal reaction to people arguing that HRC needs to earn their vote is like what. No, you have an obligation to vote for the person who is going to hurt the country/world/universe the least. I'll even go all out and say that one has a patriotic obligation to do the same. I love my country, even though it does shitty things sometimes.

people who are like third party/Jill Stein/whatever I mean I can't Killgrave you into voting responsibly, but I'm not going to act like somebody's choice of vote is tantamount to choice of sexual partner. It's not.
posted by angrycat at 11:39 AM on May 20, 2016 [12 favorites]


Ugh. No. No one has an obligation to do anything. No one has any right to tell you that you have to vote or, worse, how to vote.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:43 AM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


Her?
posted by tonycpsu at 11:44 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Pretty sure we’ve got the right to tell you. It doesn’t mean you have to listen, though.
posted by nicepersonality at 11:45 AM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


well that's a nice little philosophy but doesn't really, you know, help anything
posted by angrycat at 11:45 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't want to argue with you, angrycat. But I can't support any sort of forcing people to do something because you or I think it's right. You can try to persuade people if you want. But what they do in the end is ultimately their decision.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:49 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


But I can't support any sort of forcing people to do something because you or I think it's right.

I am super baffled by this almost-paranoid defensiveness. In what possible universe is stating a belief that people have an "obligation to vote for the person who is going to hurt the country/world/universe the least" even remotely equivalent to "forcing" anyone to do anything?
posted by dersins at 11:54 AM on May 20, 2016 [24 favorites]


I think it was extremely obvious that angrycat was not suggesting any sort of force. A moral obligation to vote a certain way might or might not exist, but either way, there's no force.
posted by skewed at 11:56 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]




If only.
posted by zarq at 11:58 AM on May 20, 2016 [17 favorites]


Nobody here is actually forcing anybody to vote. I hearby wave my magic wand and condemn anybody who is literally dragging someone by the ear into a voting booth against their will. But yes, the actual point of an election campaign is to persuade other people to both vote and vote in a certain way. Why else do we have debates and town halls and interviews and everything else?
posted by zachlipton at 11:58 AM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sorry. Maybe I'm jumpy. But there's a whole lot of creepy authoritarianism/'people thinking they are correct and others are wrong/awful/horrible/traitors' on display in this election and it disgusts me to no end. Anything that touches on that gets me going.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:59 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think talking things over is fine. Being persuasive is fine. Shaming people, disparaging them or telling them they're personally responsible for the country going to apocalyptic hell in a handbasket because they voted for a particular candidate is not.

Except for Trump voters. Y'all are fair game. ;)
posted by zarq at 12:01 PM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


NRA Endorses Donald Trump, Trump Tells NRA Clinton 'Wants to Abolish the Second Amendment'

Fuck. This ensures my dad's vote. He has spent the last 15 years absorbing Fox News and NRA magazines with gross caricatures of Hillary on the cover.

We can't even talk about politics at all anymore because he's gone full frothing racist grandpa.
posted by Fleebnork at 12:02 PM on May 20, 2016


"I'm with her" makes you want to puke? That's about as anodyne a campaign slogan as I've ever heard.


I wouldn't say puke, but I do find it very off-putting. I'd be more excited to hear that she's with me than an invitation to say that I'm with her. Maybe they feel it is necessary to get out the word that lots of normal people are supporting her, since more than two decades of Hillary-bashing have kind of normalized the idea that she's unlikeable. I'm a former Bernie voter/donor turned reluctant but semi-enthusiastic Hillary supporter/donor, for what it's worth.
posted by skewed at 12:08 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


As to skewed's point, "I'm with her" sounds candidate-centric. Pretty far removed from "Yes We Can"
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:12 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ike Likes Me
posted by defenestration at 12:13 PM on May 20, 2016 [11 favorites]


bern feels me
posted by defenestration at 12:14 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


I like Ike rhymes, tho.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:16 PM on May 20, 2016


Tippecanoe and me also
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:16 PM on May 20, 2016 [22 favorites]


I wouldn't say puke, but I do find it very off-putting.

Two of the (many) official slogans used by the Obama campaign in 2012 were "I'm in" and "I've got his back." The Obama slogans, like Clinton's "I'm with her," were a way for supporters to express their support. Did it similarly bother you when the Obama campaign did it, or does Clinton's slogan feel somehow different to you?

Because here's the thing: if "I'm with her" does feel different to you, it is probably worth interrogating that feeling and trying to determine why you are reacting differently in this case, and what exactly it is that you are finding "off-putting."
posted by dersins at 12:17 PM on May 20, 2016 [11 favorites]


And, yeah, "Feel the Bern" serves the same function, except that it is phrased as an imperative to support rather than as an expression of support. (Also, with a soupçon of excruciating punnage, which, frankly, not my favorite, but YMMV.)
posted by dersins at 12:23 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Reading over the lists of presidential campaign slogans you get with a simple Google, not many are memorable. "I'm with Her" works in the sense that it's simple and memorable. (Wikipedia says Jill Stein's is "It's in My Hands" which is frankly kind of bizarre.)

"Yes We Can" was awesome - maybe I romanticize that because of how wonderful that moment in time felt.

"I Like Ike" is just a genuinely excellent slogan, it's a pleasure to say. And "Happy Days are Here Again" is also a classic.
posted by sallybrown at 12:24 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Can't spell America without ME

Make aMErica great again

Morning in aMErica
posted by Existential Dread at 12:25 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


Existential Dread, don't give them any ideas.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:26 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd like to see more in the vein of "We Polked you in '44, We shall Pierce you in '52"
posted by everybody had matching towels at 12:26 PM on May 20, 2016 [14 favorites]


amERICa though

where are the erics/ericas who will lead us to freedom
posted by poffin boffin at 12:26 PM on May 20, 2016 [19 favorites]


"Let Well Enough Alone" for the super chill voters and "Vote As You Shot" for the super aggro ones.
posted by sallybrown at 12:27 PM on May 20, 2016


iamERICa.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:28 PM on May 20, 2016


I'd be more excited to hear that she's with me than an invitation to say that I'm with her.

Good! Then you may be glad to see that Hillary's said in this interview, and I believe in other speeches although I couldn't immediately pull them up, "I often say, even if you're not supporting me, I'm supporting you."

Can't fit it on a bumper sticker, but it's a thing she says and keeps saying. In fact, I just found another one: "I talk to some of the young people and I say, you know, you may not be supporting me but I’m supporting you. I will work for you, I will fight for you, I just wish that there were an opportunity to actually talk and listen to each other."
posted by Stacey at 12:30 PM on May 20, 2016 [14 favorites]


where are the erics/ericas who will lead us to freedom

They only work part time in the morning due to budget constraints. Hence: A.M. Erica.
posted by malocchio at 12:30 PM on May 20, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'm just looking forward to joining Bridge Players for Clinton after the convention. We'll play with this deck of cards, and every bid will be No-Trump.
posted by dersins at 12:30 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


From way upthread: What do you think of the prospect of a national unity ticket? I.e., what if Secretary Clinton selected a moderate Republican running mate, as a way of inviting #NeverTrump voters to her cause?

I think the idea that Democrats are supposed to show bipartisanship by adopting Republican positions got stale around the middle of George W. Bush's first term, no matter how much it thrills the likes of Ron Fournier. Obama got no credit for bipartisanship from inviting Republicans to join his cabinet (and Democrats really do have to quit offering Secretary of Defense to Republicans, as it validates the perception that the Rs are "tough on defense," which also is long past its sell-by date).

I strongly doubt vice presidential picks are much of a motivator. Now, Clinton could, and should, tailor her message to appeal to moderate Republicans -- she's a known quality with lots of experience who stands for thoughtful, cautious leadership, etc.

Any so-called "moderate Republicans" who are prepared to pull the lever for Trump just go to prove they aren't really moderate.
posted by Gelatin at 12:32 PM on May 20, 2016 [16 favorites]


where are the erics/ericas who will lead us to freedom

Eric Trump
posted by Going To Maine at 12:34 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


how dare you
posted by sallybrown at 12:35 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


he's not even the best son! let alone the best child (Ivanka).
posted by sallybrown at 12:36 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


ralph pls no
posted by stolyarova at 12:36 PM on May 20, 2016


I'm With Her works better on a t-shirt .
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:36 PM on May 20, 2016


Living here in Texas, where the Lege recently passed a law forcing college campuses to accept openly carried guns everywhere on campus, I'd be totally behind an effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I don't want to outlaw civilian ownership of firearms, but elevating that from "fun but dangerous hobby" to "critical human right" is absurd and results in dangerous and obnoxious behavior.

Fun fact, the Lege also set things up so that a sign asking people not to pack heat **MUST** follow an absurd number of nit picky details or it doesn't count. You wanted to ask people not to carry guns into your store but the font was the wrong size? Ha ha on you, it doesn't count. You wanted to ask people not to take guns into your store but the background was the wrong color? Sucker! Now all the Rambo wannabes can stomp around with their guns out and you can't do anything about it!

Basically the Lege has declared that guns everywhere is the goal of Texas and that anyone who would rather not have heavily armed assholes stomping around waving their guns at people must jump through an ever increasing number of hoops.

University of Houston had a class for professors on how to deal with armed students in class, among other things urging professors to avoid any topics that could cause conservatives discomfort so as to avoid provoking the armed students into a shooting rampage. Yes, really.

If Clinton really did want to abolish the 2nd Amendment I'd be overjoyed.
posted by sotonohito at 12:36 PM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]




i was thinking more like c-list actor eric roberts or hot fictional character eric northman
posted by poffin boffin at 12:38 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Eric Cartman.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:39 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


he's not even the best son! let alone the best child (Ivanka).

well he's better than the dreaded Laramie Trump at least

that kid is garbage
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:40 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]




Why Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders should watch 'All the Way': "This is not about principle, it's about votes," Johnson barks out in one of the great lines of the film.

Schenkkan's dialogue captures the essential outlook of LBJ, even though he takes liberties with the chronology at points. We lionize Johnson for his ability to use power to get what he wanted but in fact his biggest skill was understanding the limits of the presidency and knowing when to cut deals, as difficult as they could be.

posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:41 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here are our pipeline Eric options:

Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning (first openly gay President?)
Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles (first Jewish President?)
Congressman Eric Swalwell

...I haven't found any Ericas so far...
posted by sallybrown at 12:41 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


If you vote for Clinton, people in foreign countries are going to get droned, bombed, maimed and killed. If you vote for Trump, people in foreign countries are going to get droned, bombed, maimed and killed.

Trump wants unlimited bombing with no regard for civilian casualties. He wants to target wives, children and the extended families of the "terrorists". He has also suggested we should return to torturing terrorists, doing way worse things than waterboarding. I don't think it is correct to equate the positions of Trump and Hillary in this area. Furthermore is a vote for the green or libertarian party candidate likely to achieve anything with respect to advancing your goal of ending the drone war?

Votes for Nader in 2000 didn't lead to anything tangible in terms of reducing the power of corporations, limiting money in politics or reducing the footprint of the US military. All Nader accomplished was to anger sympathetic Democrats.
posted by humanfont at 12:42 PM on May 20, 2016 [24 favorites]


Why Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders should watch 'All the Way':

I'd rather they watch Jingle All the Way

For what, I ask you, is a better unifier than laughter
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:44 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


Because here's the thing: if "I'm with her" does feel different to you, it is probably worth interrogating that feeling and trying to determine why you are reacting differently in this case, and what exactly it is that you are finding "off-putting."

Thanks. Does it have to be misogyny rather than just not liking slogans that try to build up imaginary comradery? I never cared for "feel the bern" and I don't remember/never heard Obama's "I've got his back" slogan, but find it similarly unpleasant. Nothing beats "Yes we can" I guess.

Then you may be glad to see that Hillary's said in this interview, and I believe in other speeches although I couldn't immediately pull them up, "I often say, even if you're not supporting me, I'm supporting you."

I was and I am. I think she's very good in interviews, better than in speeches. I think she's running a pretty good campaign, all things considered. And not in an "Oh, this was strategically skillful" kind of way, but that she is convincing me that she is the best person for the job. I am a former Bernie supporter not in that I have accepted he will lose, but that at this point if I could cast an tie-breaking vote I would vote for Hillary.
posted by skewed at 12:45 PM on May 20, 2016 [12 favorites]


For what, I ask you, is a better unifier than laughter

Sheer terror.
posted by zarq at 12:48 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Yes we can" is also "si se puede" - a well-known phrase among grassroots and labor organizers (esp the UFW). It's a not-so-subtle statement that Obama sees and appreciates and understands the importance of protest and collective grassroots action, as well as a direct nod to the efforts of Latinx organizers.

"I'm with her" feels like you're trying to pretend you're BFFs so you can sneak into the VIP lounge "Oh, I lost my ticket, but I'm with her." I know campaigns have many slogans, so I hope they find something more evocative of collective action for the general election.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:58 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


"I'm with her"

Reminds me:

- 50% of Pamela Des Barres's I'm With the Band (really fun but maybe not what Hillary is going for, unless we know even less about her than we thought);

- 40% of a really long work meeting where you're having a debate about whether to use font A or font B and someone is like "I'm with Janet, font B SUCKS"; and

- 10% of "Yes my friends I have chosen the female one"
posted by sallybrown at 1:05 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


I see nothing wrong with "I have chosen the female one" as a vote against systemic misogyny, especially when the alternative is The Chauvinist Pig incarnate.
posted by stolyarova at 1:08 PM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


i need to know what fonts A and B are before i can agree or disagree with this comment
posted by poffin boffin at 1:09 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


Does it have to be misogyny rather than just not liking slogans that try to build up imaginary comradery?

Of course it doesn't have to be misogyny. That's actually not even where my thinking was going with that.

I was thinking more that it's worth asking oneself whether one is reacting to the slogan itself, or to the fact that it is the slogan of Hillary Clinton.

After all, the dominant narrative about Clinton for the last quarter-century (starting from the far right, but now coming almost-equally from both the far right and the left), has been shaped by accusations that she is a dishonest, dislikeable, untrustworthy schemer whose mainstream liberal exterior conceals [choose A if the accusations are coming from the right, B if they are coming from the left: A. a radical feminist left wing agenda / B. a secret right wing republican agenda]. It's not farfetched to think that could contribute to a strong negative reaction to what is a pretty innocuous slogan that expresses the same thing as pretty much every political slogan in the history of ever.
posted by dersins at 1:09 PM on May 20, 2016 [14 favorites]


"I have chosen the female one"

this totally sounds like something a human not-misogynist would say
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:12 PM on May 20, 2016 [15 favorites]


There is no possible campaign slogan that is going to articulate my rather nuanced views on abortion, healthcare, free trade, gun control, climate change, income inequality and the wage gap, other than "Fuck You, Trump."
posted by malocchio at 1:13 PM on May 20, 2016 [20 favorites]


i need to know what fonts A and B are before i can agree or disagree with this comment

Comic sans and papyrus
posted by sandswipe at 1:13 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


this totally sounds like something a human not-misogynist would say

Ted Cruz goes undercover at a Hillary rally
posted by indubitable at 1:14 PM on May 20, 2016 [12 favorites]


There's not a genetic mutation that happens when you get US citizenship that makes you bomb brown people.

I hate the "in the DNA" metaphor cliche too, but Americans, no matter what their personal politics, are complicit in the policies of the national as a whole that exploit the rest of the world economically and militarily to sustain a significantly wealthier-than-average way of life.
posted by aught at 1:14 PM on May 20, 2016


I think "I'm With Her" is pretty strong, especially compared to Trump's "I'm With Stupid".
posted by chrchr at 1:15 PM on May 20, 2016 [15 favorites]


One big difference is that Trump's wearing the "I'm with stupid" shirt, and he's pointing the arrow at the rest of the country.
posted by dersins at 1:17 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


aught, agreed.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:17 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Many people are voting against Trump, so I think that's why some people feel hesitant with the "I'm with her" slogan and wish it were more issue focused.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:18 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


"I'm With Her" makes me think of a TV commercial where two old folks are sitting in rocking chairs on a porch watching the world go by. One candidate runs past and does something obnoxious or ridiculous. Then the second candidate calmly strides by looking responsible and well put together. Both people then turn to one another and at the same time say "I'm With Her" and then the screen goes black and you get your standard "Paid for by...".

It's a dumb marketing slogan. But most marketing slogans are pretty dumb. This one is no dumber than any of the others.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:18 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


One big difference is that Trump's wearing the "I'm with stupid" shirt, and he's pointing the arrow at the rest of the country.

The blatant pandering at the NRA today is hilarious: “the only way to save our second Amendment is to vote for a person that you all know named Donald Trump”
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:25 PM on May 20, 2016


My issue with Bernie is not that he's voicing critique of the party. It's that he's blaming the issues with the party for his loss, giving his supporters the impression that he lost because he wuz robbed, rather than because he lacked the necessary votes. Using legitimate critiques of the party to prop up a losing campaign in such a false way ends up hurting efforts to fix the very real issues with the party. *

There are ways to critique the party and party apparatus that are not summed up as "Everyone is corrupt and they are all trying to disenfranchise you and this election has been stolen from me." *


One issue is, that is mostly your interpretation. If you put yourself in Sanders' shoes—just go back and listen to his original bid at the start of the race—his critique in those words was a given: he would just as well have asserted this corruption at the very beginning, because that is and was his perspective coming in.

The alternative interpretation is that he's saying a very standard thing as an appeal to structural microaggression, with "he lacked the necessary votes" being precisely the hegemonic critical point. Rather, he's saying to his audience, "the cards are stacked, this is yet another case, and we are tired of it!". Some left academics actually say this stuff; Chomsky's said it, I've had another Berkeley econ professor say this. It is really believed.

This can be important, because understanding this is key to his base and what his explicit supporters are on about. To them, he's not blaming but quite the opposite: he speaks the unpleasant truth and performs willingness to challenge hegemonic legitimacy and language ("Using legitimate critiques in such a false way", "There are ways to critique that are not"…, etc. is part of that narrative).

For many liberals, Bernie Sanders' rhetoric is extremely disagreeable. Irresponsible, even! But I'm not interested in deciding who is being fair, for if we take a step back, we see that this conflict of outlooks is a manifestation of the trolley problem or philosophical divide that's been mentioned above. It is a values conflict, between unity and dissent. The lesson is that neither have been seeing eye-to-eye. I do think that bridging this gap requires a unifying view, which can only come from knowing what's going on for others.
posted by polymodus at 1:25 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think "I'm With Her" is pretty strong, especially compared to Trump's "I'm With Stupid".

I need to call the woman who was reading the Claudia Rankine book at Trump's rally and ask how I can get someone to sit in the stands just to one side of Trump, who can then rip off an innocuous looking Trump tie and blazer to reveal an I'm With Stupid shirt that has an arrow pointing to The Donald.
posted by sallybrown at 1:31 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ok, but Sanders is running to essentially be the leader of the Democratic party. It's not remotely unreasonable to ask of someone running for that position, who says that the party and its process is rigged and corrupt, what legitimate critiques he has and how specifically he would reform the party's process to make it better. There's no reason he can't give a speech or put out a position paper laying out specific proposals to change the Democratic nomination process for the future. If he claims that he can do something about the fact that the entire country's system is rigged and corrupt, surely he can take a minute to specifically address what he'd do about his own party.
posted by zachlipton at 1:34 PM on May 20, 2016 [14 favorites]






When I first heard "I'm with her," I thought of someone who is backing and empowering women struggling against the patriarchy--like a girl being derided for her appearance at a spelling bee, your friend who is getting slut-shamed, a co-worker who can't get a promotion because her boss is a sexist ass, or a random woman at a bar who you see getting verbally abused for turning down a guy's advances. For me, the "her" didn't just mean Clinton, it's a way of declaring you're there to back up all the women who are facing attacks or obstacles due to their gender.

The second level comes later. It is the "her" that refers to Clinton herself. She can use the pronoun in lieu of her name, because out of the two major parties there's only one "her"--it couldn't refer to anybody but Clinton. Which is part of the point: simply by becoming the nominee Clinton is already breaking a major barrier and serving as one symbol of all women who fight to achieve self-determination and equality.

I can see why either of those interpretations might be off-putting. Personally, I like "Love trumps hate" better, since it really underlines the difference between her and Trump's philosophies.

I would also like to hear something along the lines of "Even if you're not with me, I'm with you" worked into a snappy phrase. But it has those bleak undertones that basically acknowledge a whole swath of the population dislikes her, so I can understand why they might swing away from it.
posted by schroedinger at 1:44 PM on May 20, 2016 [26 favorites]


Bernie's argument that the deck is impossibly stacked against an insurgent candidate going up against an establishment-backed Clinton might be better if the insurgent candidacy of a black man with a Muslim name hadn't beaten the same establishment-backed Clinton in the last contested primary. He had obstacles but he didn't run a good enough campaign, turn out enough voters, or build a big enough coalition.
posted by chris24 at 1:48 PM on May 20, 2016 [22 favorites]


I don't think I could call Obama an insurgent candidate. He was a high profile new senator who gave the big speech at the 2004 convention. He was already part of the establishment. Just a different part. Not to say he was favored or that someone with his identity seemed likely to win back in 2008. But he was not an outsider.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:51 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


Ok, but Sanders is running to essentially be the leader of the Democratic party. It's not remotely unreasonable to ask of someone running for that position, who says that the party and its process is rigged and corrupt, what legitimate critiques he has and how specifically he would reform the party's process to make it better. There's no reason he can't give a speech or put out a position paper laying out specific proposals to change the Democratic nomination process for the future. If he claims that he can do something about the fact that the entire country's system is rigged and corrupt, surely he can take a minute to specifically address what he'd do about his own party.


And what's happening instead is dismissal and condemnation of his criticism instead of "reasonably asking what the hell he means by what he said". That is hegemony in action, isn' it?

What that means is when a marginalized class is formulating a criticism, they are not obliged to offer a solution. A defining characteristic of leftism is being able to tolerate that kind of moment.

And still, Sanders does have an answer, ideologically—as essentially a New Dealer in favor of economic/labor reform, it's probably along the lines of improving those relations that will eventually lead to better standards for healthier politics at large. It's an indirect solution, because there are no concrete actions that can break a vicious cycle.

Now again, I'm not saying he's right, or that his approach is better. I'm identifying how his rhetoric works on his platform and reading the situation in this way, and how his supporters might perceive things.
posted by polymodus at 1:51 PM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


Not the outsider Bernie was, no. But not the establishment pick and he had the racial issues to overcome as well.
posted by chris24 at 1:52 PM on May 20, 2016


Oops. How The Wrong Verb Meant The Texas GOP Called Most Texans Gay.

We also take this opportunity to point out that the official Texas GOP platform intended to call homosexuality a "chosen behavior" and unacceptable.
posted by zachlipton at 1:53 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


you can't take it back now, texas, sorry, here is your welcome package of show tunes and lube
posted by poffin boffin at 1:56 PM on May 20, 2016 [25 favorites]


Re: Nevada convention, list of alleged violations:

Voted on “temporary rules” for the convention and cheated by calling the vote for the “yeas” when the “nays” clearly had larger numbers.

This allegation doesn't make sense. The fact that Sanders supporters (younger, more male) yelled louder does not mean they get more votes. it's not a decibel meter vote, and a cell phone video taken in the middle of the Sanders section is not an objective measure of relative volume anyway. The chair was visibly scanning the crowd to see how many people were responding.

When the individual count was taken later, Clinton won, so obviously she had more delegates there. Common sense says that her delegates voted yay, which is a majority right there. Furthermore, Sanders delegates helped generate those temporary rules, and at least those directly involved presumably approved them.

So why are you so convinced that a majority voted nay?
posted by msalt at 1:57 PM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


Trump said at the rally, proposing to slap a 35 percent tariff on imported products from American companies that have outsourced their jobs and tax China's exports. And if all of that starts a trade war, "who the hell cares?"

I just, how is this a person who is real? Like, I understand that people are going for the strongman "I don't give a shit what the eggheads think" routine, but there is a certain point where the things you are arguing are so fucking stupid that getting enthused by it is like getting enthused by a dude screaming "two plus two is five!"
posted by schroedinger at 1:57 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


NRA Endorses Donald Trump, Trump Tells NRA Clinton 'Wants to Abolish the Second Amendment'

So for what it's worth (anecdotal amusement at least) I spent time last week with relatives who are about as second-amendment strong as one can get (rural plains staters, all hunters, two actual gun dealers), and they all loathe Trump with a white hot passion and are praying (in one case maybe literally) for a GOP convention coup of some kind to replace him.
posted by aught at 1:57 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie's argument that the deck is impossibly stacked against an insurgent candidate going up against an establishment-backed Clinton might be better if the insurgent candidacy of a black man with a Muslim name hadn't beaten the same establishment-backed Clinton in the last contested primary. He had obstacles but he didn't run a good enough campaign, turn out enough voters, or build a big enough coalition.

—I think I've already addressed this in my comparison with Obama upthread.
posted by polymodus at 1:58 PM on May 20, 2016


Oops. How The Wrong Verb Meant The Texas GOP Called Most Texans Gay.

That's not even the craziest shit in there. There's also repealing the 17th amendment, getting back on the gold standard, sovereign citizen "county sheriff is the highest law of the land" bs, dismantling almost every federal agency, endorsement of racial profiling, and repealing the Endangered Species Act.

In the year of 2016 this is the Texas state GOP platform. It's two thousand and fucking sixteen. My brain just can't. I can't wrap my head around it.
posted by Talez at 2:01 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


...there is a certain point where the things you are arguing are so fucking stupid that getting enthused by it is like getting enthused by a dude screaming "two plus two is five!"

That's how you can tell they bellyfeel Ingsoc!
posted by vibrotronica at 2:02 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


What that means is when a marginalized class is formulating a criticism, they are not obliged to offer a solution. A defining characteristic of leftism is being able to tolerate that kind of moment.

And still, Sanders does have an answer, ideologically—as essentially a New Dealer in favor of economic/labor reform, it's probably along the lines of improving those relations that will eventually lead to better standards for healthier politics at large. It's an indirect solution, because there are no concrete actions that can break a vicious cycle.


We're talking Bernie Sanders here, the guy running for President with millions of supporters. Asking Sanders to offer a solution for the problems he's vaguely calling out in his own party is not remotely the same thing as asking a marginalized group to solve all the problems impacting them. The President's job is to propose policies and solutions, not simply be the caller-outer-in-chief. Which I guess leads to the question: is the Sanders campaign a serious policy-driven candidacy, or a big national protest? He certainly acts like it's the former, but you're essentially telling me it's the latter.

He is, at this moment, calling out the party's nomination process. There are specific tangible ways in which that can be improved without broad "economic/labor reform" impacting everyone in the entire society.

When you're losing and you keep popping up to rant about the process as "rigged" or "corrupt," you just come across as a sore loser. If you actually point to specific things and use the considerable following you've developed to advocate to change those things, you're showing leadership.
posted by zachlipton at 2:02 PM on May 20, 2016 [15 favorites]


Common sense says that her delegates voted yay, which is a majority right there.

Have to disagree, which is why it is so problematic that the vote wasn't counted. Even at the Clark County convention Hillary supporters united with Bernie supporters to oppose unfair rule changes.

The picture below is of 2 Clinton supporters locking arms with 2 Sanders supporters on the credentials committee at the previous convention in solidarity:
Current status of the Clark County, Nevada credentials committee. pic.twitter.com/TOeWl5iaaD— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) April 2, 2016

posted by kyp at 2:02 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]



Speaking of Trumps sons, I give you Uday & Qusay, which strikes me as a fair analogy.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:06 PM on May 20, 2016


And what's happening instead is dismissal and condemnation of his criticism instead of "reasonably asking what the hell he means by what he said". That is hegemony in action, isn' it?

No, it's the fact that while one may be entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. Sanders is asserting that the system is rigged against him, yes - but the evidence doesn't back the argument up. Hell, his argument itself is inconsistent - he rails against closed primaries for disenfranchising voters, but defends caucuses, which are much more disenfranchising.

At a certain point, the obligation to prove a claim rests on the claimant.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:08 PM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


You said something that really bothered me last night -- it read to me as 'maybe now those Jewish white dudes will have greater understanding/empathy for women who have had to deal with Gamergate harassment.' That felt very WTF. As if we're somehow incapable of being properly horrified by Gamergate until it happens to us personally, or worse, that the antisemitic harassment might possibly have a positive outcome, by "changing the discussion."
I haven't actually seen any evidence that the mainstream media, let alone the conservative media, have taken seriously the ongoing problem of social media harassment meant to terrorize and silence feminist writers. Neither has law enforcement. I think that conversation may change now that people in the mainstream and conservative media establishments are being subject to the same tactics. I guess that I'm sorry that feels wtf to you, but I actually don't think that I, as a Jewish woman, need your permission as a Jewish man to state my opinions. I'm think I've made it pretty clear that I'm horrified and pretty scared about the antisemitism coming from Trump's supporters, and if you choose to stay interpret what I said as thinking that there's anything positive about it, then I can only assure you that that's entirely your issue.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:09 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


but defends caucuses

When did Sanders defend caucuses?
posted by kyp at 2:11 PM on May 20, 2016


Except they weren't unfair rule changes -- it was basic procedural stuff that they decided to throw a misinformed shitfit over. I try not to hold the Bernie Bro lecturing I have gotten in the wild against the Sanders campaign, though it requires effort, but when his actual delegates try to overturn the popular vote with maneuvers in convention *and then throw tantrums* when yelling louder doesn't get them what they want, I am not impressed.

Especially when people decide that the difference between "thrown chairs" and "went after someone with a chair, had it wrested away before they could use it" is important and therefore they are libeled innocents.
posted by tavella at 2:11 PM on May 20, 2016 [18 favorites]


So why are you so convinced that a majority voted nay?

I think because technically in the original rules it was supposed to be decided by a voice vote, so technically it didn't matter if there were more delegates as long as one side was louder. Why follow democracy in good faith when you could win on technicalities?

—I think I've already addressed this in my comparison with Obama upthread.

Your explanation is that leftists speak "truth to power", and neoliberals don't, and Obama proved himself to be a neoliberal while Bernie outed himself as a leftist. There are two problems with this explanation. First, it requires the adoption of extremely non-standard definitions of "leftist" and "neoliberal", definitions that seem to have been concocted specifically to link oratory style with political beliefs in order to make the argument work. Second, it assumes that the leftist/neoliberal split are literally the most important factor in deciding whether a candidate is acceptable to the general populace, as if, say, racism and anti-Islamic attitudes don't exist.

It also ignores all the other massive differences between Obama and Sanders and the way they planned their strategy and ran their campaigns. Like, the fact that Obama's tactics were brilliant and innovative, and Bernie has been making it up as he goes along.
posted by schroedinger at 2:12 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


When did Sanders defend caucuses?

May 6th interview with Maddow:
MADDOW: It seems to me like the other sort of small D, democratic problem in the – in the way the Republican – the way the Democrats and Republicans pick their nominees are the caucuses.

And, I know caucuses have a strong history and they have their adherents. But they're pretty anti-democratic. They're complicated. They're for insiders. They are – they take a lot of time. They exclude, in effect, a lot of people.

That's – and you've done very, very well at caucuses. What's your view on them?

SANDERS: The answer is yes and no. Everything you've said is true, but there's another side to that. I happen to believe that we have to really reinvigorate American democracy, not only getting a much larger voter turnouts than we have in the past.

The last general election, as you remember, midterm election, 63 percent of the people didn't vote. This is unacceptable.

So we need to figure out ways to bring people into the process. We also have to figure out a way to engage people in a very deep sense in American democracy. And what caucuses do do – you're right, it does take time to come to a caucus and to argue with your neighbor about which candidate is the better candidate.

But you know what? I kind of like that. You know, I understand there are negatives to it. But I do like the idea of the American people becoming more engaged in the political process. Yes, you're spending a – a few hours on a Saturday afternoon. But this is – you are helping to determine
the future of America.

It has its ups and its downs, right. But I don't think we should dismiss the caucuses.
He says 37% turnout is unacceptable, and then advocates a system that results in a ~1% turnout and he knows has a ~1% turnout. Plus the "few hours on a Saturday afternoon" bit, which, from my understanding, is usually more than a few hours and not necessarily on a weekend.
posted by schroedinger at 2:28 PM on May 20, 2016 [18 favorites]


Gradualism, Single-Payer, and the Debate We’re Not Having
The second place where this came up was with single-payer, which I discussed in a previous post. As I said in that post, there are some major problems with the current debate which make it very difficult to have the conversation that Scott Lemieux wants us to be having about how to build on the Affordable Care Act to get to a European-style health system.

Because when we look at an example like Colorado, signs are not very encouraging that the ACA is going to be used in that way, as opposed to being used as rhetorical cover for being opposed to further reform. It’s one thing to argue that gradualism is better than going for single-payer in one bite, but it’s another thing to openly campaign for the defeat of a single-payer initiative, to echo Republican attacks that single-payer will raise taxes and kill jobs, and to see Democratic consultants working for the vote no campaign.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:32 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


schroedinger, thanks for the link.
posted by kyp at 2:34 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


I fully support efforts to point out ways in which American electoral processes are undemocratic. But combining those efforts with an attempt to seize the nomination no matter what doesn't fly; you end up saying that everything that makes a Sanders nomination less likely is anti-democratic and then you've lost the high ground. The establishment is just trying to keep power for themselves? Then how is this crap from the Sanders camp any better?

(We voted for the guy in Virginia, too, for all the good that did.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:36 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


We call Donald Trump an idiot yet we're the ones tearing a party apart over two fucking delegates and procedural bullshit. The math really hasn't worked for Sanders in any conceivable way since March 15th (after the results is when I pulled my recurring donation for him) yet we're halfway through May and we're into just scorched earth style political brawling now?

This why I'm getting that funny "we're about to get fucked this election, aren't we?" feeling right now.

I'd say I'm done with it but I was done with it two fucking months ago. Grow up the lot of you.
posted by Talez at 2:40 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think because technically in the original rules it was supposed to be decided by a voice vote, so technically it didn't matter if there were more delegates as long as one side was louder. Why follow democracy in good faith when you could win on technicalities?

But that's a mistaken understanding. Voice vote doesn't mean that the louder side wins, it means the side with the most people voice voting wins. Which is decided by number of people not loudness!

Clinton's supporters outnumbered the Sanders supporters which is why they won the voice votes. But I've never once seen a diehard acknowledge that. It's always an assertion that the chair overruled the louder Sanders supporters (with evidence being audio taken from the middle of the Sanders supporters... which kind of guarantees they sound louder). Which is completely irrelevant.

Loudness does not win a voice vote.
posted by Justinian at 2:41 PM on May 20, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'm actually pretty irked that caucus reform has become so wrapped up with the Bernie vs. Hillary debate, because it's really a separate issue that deserves attention no matter what side of that divide you're on. I'm worried we're going to get hung up on this particular primary season and come up with solutions that don't really address the overarching problems.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:42 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


If it makes you feel any better, it's highly unlikely we were going to get any sort of reform of the process to begin with, so I don't think we've lost much.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:48 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


we're down to 5 justices then?

The Republicans' court-unpacking plan.
posted by JackFlash at 2:50 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


We call Donald Trump an idiot yet we're the ones tearing a party apart over two fucking delegates and procedural bullshit.

Who is “we” here out of curiosity? I sort of assume that “we” is the elections thread on MetaFilter, which is a very small window on the world, and one that includes almost no Republicans whatsoever.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:51 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


"This why I'm getting that funny "we're about to get fucked this election, aren't we?" feeling right now."

Vox thinks you can relax: "The most recent CBS/New York Times poll shows that 6 percent of Democratic primary voters (many of whom, as we've learned in this campaign, are not registered Democrats) say they won't support Clinton, plus another 2 percent who say they're not sure."

Compared to 2008: "Back in late May 2008, a CBS/New York Times poll found that 12 percent of Democratic primary voters said they would vote for John McCain, plus 3 percent who said they wouldn't vote and 4 percent who weren't sure."

It's a very small liberal circular firing squad. I mean it's barely like an arc of 20*. It's going to be okay. I think the echo chambers we politically-active liberals live in sometimes are making this seem like a worse thing than it actually is. I'm frustrated by the infighting too, but this is probably a temporary set of arguments and disunity that isn't as far-reaching as it feels like. Most Democratic voters aren't really even paying attention to it.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:51 PM on May 20, 2016 [21 favorites]


that reminds me, I've been missing corb's dispatches from the secret Dumblecruz's Army meetings
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:52 PM on May 20, 2016 [24 favorites]


Well, inasmuch as #NeverTrump was a thing, it's not anymore, so...
posted by tonycpsu at 2:54 PM on May 20, 2016


Who is “we” here out of curiosity? I sort of assume that “we” is the elections thread on MetaFilter, which is a very small window on the world, and one that includes almost no Republicans whatsoever.

Us, /r/SandersForPresident, the supporters that filed the lawsuit against the Nevada DNC.
posted by Talez at 2:54 PM on May 20, 2016


Yeah, that's true, tonycpsu. There's a committee looking at ways to fix the Iowa Democratic caucuses, and the current feeling is that any changes they make will be pretty small, and our best hope for reform is that the national party will lay down the law. And I don't think that will fly this year, because Sanders supporters would see it as some sort of attempt to stifle dissent.

I think we might get proxy voting for people with disabilities, which would at least be something.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:54 PM on May 20, 2016


Like I'm subbed to /r/SandersForPresident and it's like a fucking viper pit of toxicity towards Clinton, the DNC, anyone they think is against Bernie.
posted by Talez at 2:55 PM on May 20, 2016


Like I'm subbed to...

I have a suggestion.
posted by lalex at 2:56 PM on May 20, 2016 [14 favorites]


Kyp: a photo of four credentials committee members locking arms on April 2 proves that lots of Clinton delegates defected to the Sanders side on May 14th? Not hardly, and the fact that they voted for Clinton's slate is much stronger evidence to the contrary. Here's what Politifact says:

Supporters of Sanders believed that the convention rules, which have been largely the same since 2008, gave an unfair amount of power to Lange, the convention chair. The rules specifically lay out that all convention votes must be done by voice vote, and that only the convention chair can declare the winner or call for a more specific method of voting among the thousands of delegates.

The rules, which can be read here, also state that any amendment attempts must be approved by two-thirds of the convention delegates — which would be difficult given the nearly even number of Clinton and Sanders backers present.... there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaigns.

The first major fight happened in the morning, with the convention being gaveled in nearly 40 minutes after the scheduled 9 a.m. start time. In a voice vote, Lange approved adoption of a preliminary credentials report ... Although several videos from the event appear to have louder "nays" than "yeas," both preliminary and final delegate counts showed that Clinton supporters outnumbered Sanders supporters in the room. And trying to determine the outcome of a voice vote from a video of around 3,000 delegates is somewhat arbitrary to begin with. The only person with authority to call for a different voting mechanism is the convention chair: Lange.

posted by msalt at 3:04 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Kyp: a photo of four credentials committee members locking arms on April 2 proves that lots of Clinton delegates defected to the Sanders side on May 14th? Not hardly, and the fact that they voted for Clinton's slate is much stronger evidence to the contrary. Here's what Politifact says:

Not saying that, I'm saying that it means Clinton and Sanders supporters are not robots that vote mindlessly along candidate lines, and that the voice vote should have been counted more accurately. Which seems obvious since now we're debating endlessly about the outcome of the vote.
posted by kyp at 3:07 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Us, /r/SandersForPresident, the supporters that filed the lawsuit against the Nevada DNC.

These are wonderfully unrepresentative groups. Fears assuaged.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:07 PM on May 20, 2016


Does anyone think that this sounds like trying to unite the Dems?

Apparently simple math proved challenging for the Sanders campaign on Saturday night – but it really shouldn’t take three days to figure out this one
posted by futz at 3:08 PM on May 20, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'm sorry, schroedinger—do you not think that the further from center a candidate is, a) the less popular appeal they will have, b) the less sociotechnogical capital they will have to run an innovative campaign, and c) the more likely they are going to be distortedly framed such as a priori deciding they are "ranting" (real comment above) or "making it up"?

Your explanation is that leftists speak "truth to power", and neoliberals don't, and Obama proved himself to be a neoliberal while Bernie outed himself as a leftist. There are two problems with this explanation.

No. It is simply that leftists tend to engage in critique and are more comfortable doing it. Critique involves rhetoric, but it is fundamentally an intellectual process. Politicians perform critique and criticism generally, and the kind of critique they levy—the intellectual content of their statements or absence of statements—is part of their political behavior. Further, they gain or shed supporters based on citizens' identification with various language.

Yes, critique can seem so out of habit that it takes on the appearance of liability to the out-group. "He's ranting!" Versus, "The cards are stacked!" The key is to remember that his supporters see his same words very differently, and understanding where that comes from would be incredibly useful for the purposes of solidarity or unity. Second, there is a distinct lack of recognition that critique tends to trigger unexamined negative reactions (why I said other politicians such as Obama are more savvy about this), which we understand are not really warranted because "negative logic" is not necessarily threatening. Third, critique is hard to resist. We're all tempted to do it, on one level or another.

Nevertheless, as a New Dealer, Sanders is not even that left! He's not a socialist, or communist, or Marxist, or Jill Stein. To me, it's an intuitive rule of thumb that the closer you appear to the centre, the greater a politician's appeal will be. That seems accurate in this political climate.

As for race, the typical argument by implicit racist leftists is that economic class > race issues. Race is a distraction, versus Race matters to actual people. We've all heard versions of that disagreement. My personal position, as a queer and person of color, is that the conflict runs deeper than that level. Any Marxian who has read Capital must intuit that class and race are deeply interlinked, and the problem of our times is to find the right synthesis, to refuse to let either's privileged mode blind us by an mutually-exclusive, either-or proposition. I don't have a satisfactory answer, but being a minority makes this relevant to me, and I have heard no one articulate any good answer, let alone take the time to conceptualize this problem in the first place.
posted by polymodus at 3:08 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


Does anyone think that this sounds like trying to unite the Dems?

Holy shit. Can someone please for the love of god take away their shovel?
posted by Talez at 3:10 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think this calls for that Lebowski gif of "You're not wrong you're just an asshole." 'Cause they're not wrong, they're just...
posted by Justinian at 3:11 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


When people being toxic on the internet leads to doxxing the chair of a state party, which leads to literally thousands of harassing and threatening phonecalls and text messages, then, yeah, it does fucking matter.

That is Gamergate shit right there, and it has no fucking place whatsoever in any of this. The spoiled, hateful children who engage in it need to take a long, hard look at themselves and grow the fuck up.

(Which of course they won't, because if they were capable of introspection they wouldn't be pulling that bush league shit in the first place.)
posted by dersins at 3:12 PM on May 20, 2016 [26 favorites]


Does anyone think that this sounds like trying to unite the Dems?

Apparently simple math proved challenging for the Sanders campaign on Saturday night – but it really shouldn’t take three days to figure out this one


Gee, it's surprising that the people who have been receiving death threats might not be in the mood to kiss and make up, nor feel that it's their place to make the first steps towards reconciliation.

Funny, that.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:18 PM on May 20, 2016 [12 favorites]


I think this calls for that Lebowski gif of "You're not wrong you're just an asshole." 'Cause they're not wrong, they're just...

Dealing with death threats, vandalism, and attempts to disrupt not only their lives but the lives of people around them?

I'm sorry, but I think that they have a damn good reason to not be terribly interested in comity at the moment.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:22 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83
Anthony Kennedy is 79
Stephen Breyer is 77


Likelihood they'll all live to see another 8 years doesn't strike me as high. Kennedy was the swing vote for gay marriage (and before that for striking down anti LGBTQ sodomy laws.) The Notorious RBG and Breyer are half the consistently sensible justices on the Court. If you care about abortion, the ACA, civil rights, wage equality, the ability to access the courts, or a host of other issues, this alone is reason to vote. For HRC

Also, for those who don't like "I'm With Her," how about the two campaign slogans that encapsulate HRC's personal philosophy, "Do the Most Good," or "Love Trumps Hate?" Or my personal favorite, #HillYes.

Also, although everything about Nevada, most of all Sanders' failure to condemn the death threats and his speech rallying followers against the DNC, bugs the heck out of me, I wish to leave it in the forgotten past. If Sanders has told Durbin, as the link above indicates, that he will be in the fight against Trump, then I'm fine with moving on. The important thing is to welcome the Sanders supporters at the convention, listen to them thoughtfully about the platform, and unite against Trump and the down ballot Rs.
posted by bearwife at 3:25 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


Also, although everything about Nevada, most of all Sanders' failure to condemn the death threats and his speech rallying followers against the DNC, bugs the heck out of me, I wish to leave it in the forgotten past.

Leaving it in the forgotten past it a great way to guarantee this happens again.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:29 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


OK, not to get all tweaky here, but "Love Trumps Hate" seems terrible from an advertising perspective (what little I know about it) and needs to be nipped in the bud. It has Trumps name right in the middle of it, and doesn't name the alternative at all. 80% of people would see that and take it as a pro Trump message.
posted by bongo_x at 3:31 PM on May 20, 2016 [12 favorites]


the voice vote should have been counted more accurately.

But the voice vote they were demanding was for the most ridiculous reason. The motion was to accept the preliminary count of credentials, a mere formality. You need to accept the preliminary count to establish a quorum before you can do any other business. The quorum requires that only 40% of registered delegates be present.

So they were demanding a head count to establish a preliminary head count to establish a quorum number which common sense would tell anyone that at least 40% of delegates who registered that morning were present in the room.

This was pure "burn it all down" obstructionism. If they insisted on head counts for every single minor formality motion the convention would take days. Even so, a caucus that should have taken a few hours took more than 16 hours due to ignorant, meaningless obstruction.
posted by JackFlash at 3:32 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


To add to bongo_x's point, it uses "Trump" in the sense of "victory" which I think we need to avoid doing as much as possible to limit the subconscious connotations. Using "Trump" in the sense of "trumpery" and "fakery," however, is an excellent idea.
posted by stolyarova at 3:33 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm not sure what it actually is that The Establishment is supposed to be doing right now to court these voters. They're not exactly telling Sanders voters to go fuck themselves.

A genuine question to Bernie Sanders supporters who are mad at Clinton and the DNC for various reasons. What is it exactly that you would like Clinton to do in the coming week, weeks, months?


I'm certainly not a typical Bernie supporter but these are my thoughts:

- Battle Sanders on the issues.

Don't feed the personal conflicts between Bernie and Hillary supporters, try to bring them together. This means stop criticizing Bernie for continuing his campaign and "misleading his followers." Just explain why she's a stronger candidate, but also focus more on things she agrees with Bernie on. Ignore the more personal attacks from Bernie's side. This pattern developing of Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters attacking each other is really useless and destructive; try to cut it of.

- Provide clarity on dividing issues:

I think a big issue dividing democrats is a sort of false conflict between the more old-school Marxist Left and the BLM movement on whether economic policy or structural racism is a more important focus of the next President. The Marxist Left may believe building a cohesive labor movement will ultimately address racism and that Democrats should be reaching out more to the "white working class" even if they may be somewhat racist. BLM intellectuals may accuse past labor movements of contributing to racism and see appealing the the white working class as a betrayal that supports the white supremacist status quo.

Hillary could do some good by making a more in-depth policy speech on these issues, explaining they are independent problems, and how she plans to address both of them.

- Explain how she plans to address wealth inequality and possible structural changes we are seeing in the economy.

As a Bernie supporter she seems weak on this - that it will take more than assigning Bill to "revive" the economy. Maybe she wants to attract the neoliberal Republicans alienated by Trump, so she's trying to please too many people. I would suggest she re-assign people like Krugman from attacking Bernie to developing more in-depth liberal solutions of their own to labor and wealth-inequality issues and ways to sell them. I'm skeptical of Trump and Bernie's protectionism, but it does seem that we should be doing a lot more to compensate for working class jobs being lost to globalization and technology and create more higher-income jobs.

What should Sanders do?

Bernie's ardent supporters are probably trying to decide if it makes more sense to work from within the Democratic party or independently. Bernie should use the Democratic convention to emphasize how close they came to winning the Dem nomination, even with everything stacked against outsiders, and declare his commitment to the Party moving forward. The Party should use the opportunity to welcome them.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:34 PM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


OK, not to get all tweaky here, but "Love Trumps Hate" seems terrible from an advertising perspective (what little I know about it) and needs to be nipped in the bud.

It's an apostrophe away from an endorsement!
posted by indubitable at 3:38 PM on May 20, 2016 [31 favorites]


the voice vote should have been counted more accurately.

The Seattle teachers' union had voice votes all through our general meetings on the strike last autumn, and to ratify the contract that preceded it. Voice voting is probably the most divisive, undemocratic, and frankly un-reassuring methods of collective decision-making I've ever experienced. Even when I was pretty damn sure my "side" won a vote, I walked away feeling deeply uncomfortable with the process, and therefore the whole decision.

Unless you're witnessing an absolute, unquestionable landslide, judging a voice vote is arbitrary as hell. More importantly, when things are contentious, it's a great way to make sure one side or the other walks away feeling robbed, because those people around them sure were loud, weren't they? How could the other side have been louder? If it was even close, why not do a headcount?

Further, it is incredibly difficult to go against a shouting crowd. Calling "no" when everyone else is shouting "yay" requires a lot of fortitude. At that point, when faced with a riled-up crowd, you're naturally going to be left weighing the importance of your vote against the importance of not being harassed, not alienating people you know, the list goes on. I saw people speak up against going on strike, giving very good, personal reasons for it, and honestly I admired their courage even when I disagreed with them. We should not subject people to that sort of mob pressure. That's not the way to make rational or fair decisions.

I'm not terribly sympathetic toward Sanders's supporters out of Nevada, because on the balance I don't think they were robbed at all. At the same time, I can absolutely see where the system is set up to welcome controversy like this.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:43 PM on May 20, 2016 [14 favorites]


JackFlash, I was responding to a specific point about voice votes having to follow nominee lines exactly.

I've seen conflicting accounts of the Nevada convention from both sides, that differ on timelines and importance of certain events. On MeFi I'm seeing that both sides are unable or unwilling to concede certain points or have fundamental differences in the interpretation of the event, so I don't really want to get involved in a long endless unproductive discussion (I probably shouldn't have replied to begin with).
posted by kyp at 3:43 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Did you know that although Trump called in his remarks to the NRA today for "an end to gun-free zones in the United States" , it turns out many of his own properties don't allow guns?

Other (completely untruthful) gems from his statements today:

Hillary wants to disarm vulnerable Americans in high-crime neighborhoods,” Mr. Trump said. “This is the most basic human right of all, but Hillary wants to strip it away . . ."

"Crooked Hillary Clinton is the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate ever to run for office. She wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

Mr. Trump also unveiled a new moniker for Mrs. Clinton — “heartless Hillary” — and said that her policies on guns and criminal justice would make women, in particular, less safe. He said her agenda was “to release the violent criminals from jail.”

“She wants them all released,” he said. “She wants people released that you wouldn’t want to walk on the street with, you wouldn’t want to look at.”


FYI, I'm one of those rare pro-gun MeFis, though I think HRC's gun control proposals are all sensible and I'm fine with them.
posted by bearwife at 3:54 PM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


Like I'm subbed to /r/SandersForPresident and it's like a fucking viper pit of toxicity towards Clinton, the DNC, anyone they think is against Bernie

"i dove into a septic tank and i can't believe i found all this poop!"
posted by poffin boffin at 3:55 PM on May 20, 2016 [23 favorites]


“heartless Hillary”

I can’t see it sticking. Rolls off the tongue better than “crooked” , but just seems cartoonish given Trump’s obvious grossness.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:57 PM on May 20, 2016


JackFlash: This was pure "burn it all down" obstructionism. If they insisted on head counts for every single minor formality motion the convention would take days. Even so, a caucus that should have taken a few hours took more than 16 hours due to ignorant, meaningless obstruction.

There's really only two possibilities: it was either ignorance, or it was a deliberate attempt to drag things out because they figured their group could outlast the numerically superior group. And that gets pretty ugly when they are a) attempting to overturn an initial public vote and b) counting on the other side to have more obligations (job shifts they have to turn up for, kids they have to be home for) or to be older/handicapped/otherwise not able to go 16 hours+ plus.

So when someone is attempting to play Robert's Rules of Orders games to disenfranchise people doubly, I am unmoved by the idea it is unfair to use those same legislative rules to prevent them.
posted by tavella at 3:58 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yes! It amounts to "how dare they use parliamentary rules to stop us from using parliamentary rules to disenfranchise people!"
posted by Justinian at 4:00 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


Plus, as sallybrown pointed out with the article she posted above, Hillary Clinton is far from heartless.
posted by stolyarova at 4:00 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


who is this Robert guy anyway

let's get him
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:00 PM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


Really I just wanted to link to that article again because even though it's Buzzfeed and it's from several months ago it's very well-done.
posted by stolyarova at 4:01 PM on May 20, 2016


FYI, I'm one of those rare pro-gun MeFis, though I think HRC's gun control proposals are all sensible and I'm fine with them.

I'm a gun owner who is fine with them too. The NRA has positioned themself on the logical extreme when it comes to guns. They occasionally claim they want to enforce existing gun laws or something but its super clear they really just want completely unrestricted access (at least for white people).

While that will play well for Trump in red states, I don't think it will be to his advantage to stick to an absolutist view of gun control in swing states. Most of the country supports at least some restrictions.

Of course, Trump doesn't value consistency, so he may well say something different at debates or rallies in those states than he does to the NRA.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:06 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


More from Dishonest Donald today: no, he didn't raise 6 million for vets. Maybe half that amount.
posted by bearwife at 4:11 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


who is this Robert guy anyway let's get him

No way man. Robert rules!
posted by zachlipton at 4:15 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


it was either ignorance, or it was a deliberate attempt to drag things out because they figured their group could outlast the numerically superior group.

So, "Let us dispel this fiction that they didn't know what they were doing. They knew exactly what they were doing."
posted by JackFlash at 4:16 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump announced his energy advisor. Not only is he a climate change denier (unsurprising), he denies there is warming occurring and denies any link between CO2 and global warming. (As opposed to the "warming is occurring but humans aren't causing it / can't stop it" line I've heard from more Republicans recently).

(Again, not really surprising from a candidate who once claimed climate change was a Chinese hoax)
posted by thefoxgod at 4:18 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm sorry, schroedinger—do you not think that the further from center a candidate is, a) the less popular appeal they will have, b) the less sociotechnogical capital they will have to run an innovative campaign, and c) the more likely they are going to be distortedly framed such as a priori deciding they are "ranting" (real comment above) or "making it up"?

I assume this is a response to my argument that the Obama campaign was well-organized?

(A) Popular appeal has very little to do with whether one's campaign is organized. Having a coherent message and strategy, and staying on that, and ensuring your operatives aren't contradicting one another is not dependent on how many people like you.

(B) The importance of access to sociotechnological capital is dependent on whether you're going off of established strategies or developing new ones. Obama was developing new ones. The people he recruited to run his campaign were relatively young and new to the field; they were not the grizzled veterans who won't commit until they've checked to make sure nobody else in their Rolodex has picked them up. Which is to say--yes, it is possible to recruit outside talent, but you do have to look for it and you have to plan for it. Bernie doesn't even have the excuse of having difficulty finding talent, though--he used the same dude who ran his 2006 campaign and then worked as his aide. Despite the fact this guy was clearly out of his depth from the start.

(C) Finally, in the modern political arena framing of whether one is "ranting" is as much about how one presents one's message and handles the media as it is about the message itself. Donald Trump is a great example of somebody who is saying insane, incoherent shit, and yet has netted himself the GOP nomination because he delivers his incoherent shit well and has done a great job of manipulating the media.

Bernie's fundamental issue is that he started out a protest candidate and did not seem to put his campaign together with the care and planning he should've if he actually wanted to win (e.g. did not start planning in 2014). Obama had a clear idea of what he wanted, was thoughtful in his staff recruitment, and was mostly well-organized through the whole process.


No. It is simply that leftists tend to engage in critique and are more comfortable doing it.

Like, I understand that the sum total of your argument is "let's listen to Sanders supporters", but it's hard to get at that meat when it is couched in blanket, unsupported statements like this.
posted by schroedinger at 4:20 PM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


Democrats consider new rules to avoid convention chaos

In a speech dedicated almost entirely to projecting confidence that the party will ultimately unify, Wasserman Schultz drew on her experience as a die-hard Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008.

“To say that I was not very well-liked by then-Sen. Obama’s supporters would be an understatement. Despised might be more accurate,” Wasserman Schultz said. “I share that story with you because I want to remind everyone that we have been down this road before.”

She mocked the “media’s love affair with notions of party discord” and said she was “confident that we will channel the passion and energy from our primary into unity behind a common purpose.”

...Buckley called on the Sanders campaign, along with the Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, to agree to eight new guidelines to ensure peace at upcoming state conventions.

The guidelines called for cost sharing for extra security, more meetings to hammer out issues ahead of time and for senior officials with both campaigns to be on the floor of the convention to help reign in supporters if need be.

He also called on all parties to agree that conventions should proceed “without interruption or interference of any manner,” including “auditory or visual distractions.”...

posted by futz at 4:26 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's looking more and more like Philadelphia 2016 going to be Chicago 1968 all over again. It makes me sick.
posted by haiku warrior at 4:45 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


I, like a few others, gloated over the certainty of GOP convention turmoil. This is the universe's payback for our arrogance: the Republicans fall quietly into line behind Trump while the Democrats gear up to tear themselves apart.

Lord, I accept my penance, but I ask you not punish the whole country for my wrongdoings.
posted by schroedinger at 4:58 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie should announce he is going to transform his campaign into a bid to flip the Senate to Democratic control so he can become chairman of the budget committee. That's the second most powerful job in DC. For the changes he wants to make, it might beore powerful. For example Obamacare was written by Max Bachus when he ran the committee.
posted by humanfont at 5:00 PM on May 20, 2016 [18 favorites]


From futz's link:
Lange told MSNBC that she is still receiving threats from Sanders supporters and fears for her safety. She said she has yet to hear from the Sanders campaign.
WTF? No "hey I'm sorry people are making death threats in my name" call? The problem with running a principled good-guy campaign is that people actually expect you to continue be the good guy.
posted by zachlipton at 5:03 PM on May 20, 2016 [16 favorites]


Or at least, "Hey guys" (and I do mean guys), "stop threatening Chairperson Lange, K? You're not helping."
posted by msalt at 5:06 PM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


FYI, I'm one of those rare pro-gun MeFis, though I think HRC's gun control proposals are all sensible and I'm fine with them.

Huh, I just realized that I feel the same way about guns and HRC: I have my issues with them but overall I am a lot less anti-them than most liberals, and I usually keep my mouth shut about them because I realize other people passionately disagree with my and I just don't always wanna get into it, especially when it comes down to a matter of personal values and priorities rather than incomplete information on either side.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:06 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's looking more and more like Philadelphia 2016 going to be Chicago 1968 all over again. It makes me sick.

This really needs a cite. I mean, it’s been less than a week since Nevada. Less than a week. - There’s plenty of times for things to change around. Arguments that Sanders is entitled to be the nominee go out the window if Clinton hits the pledged delegate totals, which has a decent shot of happening.

What we do have is a media that wouldn’t mind having a big old beef and convention fight. (It would be great anyway, but also adds a bunch of drama and fear to an election where one candidate is widely despised.) We also have a bunch of GG-style trolls who are happy to threaten someone. That’s serious, yes, but it’s also pretty standard-grade misogyny in the US. It’s not the sign of a new movement, it’s a sign of ordinary grossness against women.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:11 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


First, it's not an unsupported argument. Leftists on metafilter itself utilize structural critique. Sociologists and invisible knapsack are examples of left critique. Even postmodernism is left critique, of a sort. So when Sanders uses the same concepts at a different target, my response as a Leftist is to extend the same standard of comprehension. Doing so is separate from how much I would advocate for his views or policies—Noam Chomsky had already presciently evaluated Sanders' prospects, months before any of these recent events.

Like, I understand that the sum total of your argument is "let's listen to Sanders supporters"

That's not my argument. That certainly is one side effect of perspective taking, but it is up each of us to do as we're comfortable. If one of them threatened you with a chair, I am not suggesting that you be try to nice to them. That would be reductive of what I've said at length.

Bernie's fundamental issue is that he started out a protest candidate and did not seem to put his campaign together with the care and planning he should've if he actually wanted to win (e.g. did not start planning in 2014). Obama had a clear idea of what he wanted, was thoughtful in his staff recruitment, and was mostly well-organized through the whole process.

This is essentially a competence narrative, which is the capitalistic, neoliberal framing of social relations. Specifically why:

a) People select for ideological compatibility. Messages are symbolic, and citizens' perception of where a politician falls along the Overton window gets their vote. Centrists tend to win because of identification by the population. Organization and rational discourse have roles and effects, but they are not primal or ultimate causes; at risk of superficial contradiction, there can be no primal explanation, really. Dan Kahan specifically challenges the information deficit theory of rationality, for example. The competence explanation satisfies neoliberal need for closure; I see this again and again in instances of hegemonic language.

b) When Obama was innovative because he built upon grassroots talent, that is exactly the leverage of sociotechnological capital. Not the other case that was suggested: not using establishment resources of veteran campaign agents provides authenticity and indeed required intellectual capital—on the part of Obama and his staff—political savvy, to recognize that. Startup culture is not born from a vacuum. From Marx as well as critical theorists, we understand that capital in either sense is not static, and that it should not be simplistically mystified or demarcated.

c) Trump is a perfect example too. He secured his current position because he tapped into deep frustrations of some demographic sectors in a particular way. Whether his words "are" bullshit depends on who the listener is. We have some tools to understand the dynamic between Trump and his supporters, but that's what it is in part: a sociological and psychological dynamic where certain economically impoverished groups find appeal in a figure who advocates solutions the rest of us validly believe are problematic. Meanwhile, when we accuse others of ranting, we too become complicit in buying into the dynamic. We should recognize that more. Such rhetoric colors our own comprehension and understanding. It increases the gap, it generates more othering, and prevents empathy. It is really about ourselves and thinking to consider what they see in us.
posted by polymodus at 5:19 PM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


It is nice to see some media doing some investigating. CBS is now saying that Dishonest Donald's positions on guns at the NRA today are a flip flop from earlier statements.
posted by bearwife at 5:31 PM on May 20, 2016


Lord, I accept my penance, but I ask you not punish the whole country for my wrongdoings.

If it makes you feel any better, I've been vocally dreading an ugly GOP convention and hoping it doesn't happen. Neither convention deserves that -- especially when you consider the people like convention center staffers, local businesses and other uninvolved parties who'd suffer for it.

The universe is only punishing your schaudenfreude if it's also totally ignoring my good behavior. :)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:35 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


haiku warrior: "It's looking more and more like Philadelphia 2016 going to be Chicago 1968 all over again. It makes me sick."

In case you missed it upthread, here is Josh Marshall's review of some of the emails he received as the editor of talkingpointsmemo.com eight years ago during the Obama vs. Clinton primary fight. tl;dr: things were as messy (if not messier) at this point in 2008. Of course, the underlying dynamics were clearly different back then but maybe keep hope that it's possible for things to be super messy without being catastrophically fatal.
posted by mhum at 5:52 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm taking the weekend off the internet. I'm tired, it's been a hard week of fighting everywhere, and I need to do something else for a while.

Please be excellent to each other this weekend and assume positive intent. I mean, you never know when we might run into each other at a President Donald Trump's Make Reeducation Great Again! internment camp.
posted by dw at 5:53 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


i have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a national convention
posted by poffin boffin at 5:58 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


This is essentially a competence narrative, which is the capitalistic, neoliberal framing of social relations.

And this is where I very much disagree. Because behind all the symbolism in an election campaign, it's actually a job interview. It is fundamentally about convincing voters that a particular person will do the best job in the position through a combination of proposing specific policies and appeals that a candidate's skills, experience, and charisma will allow them to achieve some of those policies and best deal with unforeseen events. Call me a crazy capitalistic, neoliberal sellout, but I believe that competence is one of the basic criteria for the job of President of the United States, and the election should indeed include a "competence narrative."

(Even Trump, ridiculous as it may sound, has a competence narrative to a certain extent. Much of his argument is an appeal to his (less than amazing) business success, with a side helping of "I'm more competent because I haven't been in government like those idiots." I'm also certainly not saying Sanders is incompetent either here, and he is not.)

Because if you're not arguing competence, you're not running for office anymore; you're running a national protest movement. And that's totally fine too. We need people to protest and effective protests need good leadership.

Nor is this a new issue. For one example, we can look at Occupy. People kept asking "what are your demands?" and the response ranged from "well these things would be nice" to "we're a disparate group that wants different things and our main point is to occupy this space and make a point and wait, you're kicking us out of the park now?" And neither of those are inherently wrong positions to take, but Occupy also was never running for the highest elected office.

And I think it leads us down a bad road when we confuse protest with campaigning, because it takes policy, solutions, and competence off the table and leads to a reliance on emotion-raising wedge issues to gain support. And we need all of those things desperately, and a lot fewer wedges.

So I do thank you, because clearly you see the world, elections, and the campaigns very differently than I do, but I'm personally a big fan of the "competence narrative."
posted by zachlipton at 6:02 PM on May 20, 2016 [17 favorites]


we're a desperate group that wants different things

I think this was a typo but I love it.
posted by Justinian at 6:05 PM on May 20, 2016 [16 favorites]


I think this was a typo but I love it.

It was, and I squeaked in just before the edit window expired to fix it, but I thank you for saving it for posterity, because I too love it.
posted by zachlipton at 6:07 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm taking the weekend off the internet.

i hear you - i have other things to do besides listen to intrapartisan bickering and learning the latest obscene absurdity committed by the droolald

it's seriously getting on my nerves
posted by pyramid termite at 6:16 PM on May 20, 2016


Heartless Hillary is a much catchier nickname than Crooked Hillary, and plays more into Hillary's right-wing reputation as someone willing to do anything for power (the nutjob stuff about the Clinton marriage being a sham, Benghazi!!!!, etc). I think that one will stick.
posted by sallybrown at 6:18 PM on May 20, 2016


we're a desperate group that wants different things

Lol, feeling this. Came back to this thread because I had to disengage from some very upset Berners in my personal circle who want their guy to "win" no matter how, no matter who or what it hurts. The way I see it, this Final Boss Form of the right wing cruelty bloc is too frightening and dangerous to take any chances with. They see equivalencies between Trump and Clinton which I can't grok, and we keep talking past each other. I don't get their position, I do get their frustration, and I do need to step away from the interaction periodically. I'm in a safe blue state so these particular moral purity performances can't do all that much damage but man, I need to manage my own frustration with this whole situation better. November's a long way off. (ps, thank you so much for existing, mature and reasonable election discussion thread. You're crushing it with these posts, Wordshore)
posted by EatTheWeak at 6:18 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


A bit of a derail, but I would like to note here how glad I am that Black Lives Matter has been able to resist the usual neoliberal chants of "Too vague! Unserious!" enough to get their agenda recognized by both Democratic candidates. I don't know enough to really dig into why, but I imagine a large part is that "Stop killing us!" is a bit less abstract than Occupy's "Wealth inequality is a serious problem!".
posted by indubitable at 6:21 PM on May 20, 2016 [15 favorites]


Well, yes, having clear, actionable demands and specific, achievable goals (no matter how difficult they may be to achieve) make it easier to get buy-in from people outside a movement. Are there people who do not understand this?
posted by dersins at 6:29 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


Thirding that TPM Link as required reading. Sibling rivalries get heated in contests, but ultimately it's about family.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:31 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


In addition to dersins's point, I would add:

- solid and horribly disturbing visual proof of what the problem is

- severe overreaction on the part of local authority, also caught on camera and easily disseminated

- brilliant strategy in regards to protests, slogans, fast and soundbite-ready of information (DeRay Mckesson and Johnetta Elzie, among many others)

- significant time and effort devoted to compiling factual background information (aided by journalists) and developing concrete, specific proposed solutions targeted to specific towns and regions (what Campaign Zero is doing)

- People with significant amounts of power (DOJ, for example) already familiar with and would like to help movement succeed.
posted by sallybrown at 6:35 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Libertarian Party VP candidate (and former governor of MA) Bill Weld quoted in the NYT about Trump's comments on illegal immigrants and Mexico:
“I can hear the glass crunching on Kristallnacht in the ghettos of Warsaw and Vienna when I hear that, honest,” Mr. Weld said Thursday.
posted by Justinian at 6:36 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


Gotta say, the Libertarian ticket is pretty reputable this time around. They actually picked people with high-level executive experience. Good for them.

Also, if they're taking Koch money, they'll probably garner a lot more votes from Donald than from Hillary, which is excellent news.
posted by stolyarova at 6:39 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


If something truly horrible happened and polls came close enough in a number of swing states to make President Trump seem likely rather than possible, I wonder if the third party candidates would team up to urge people to vote for Hillary for the good of the country?
posted by sallybrown at 6:40 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's like this election season is being pieced together from scraps of rejected Voltron scripts.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:43 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]




I'm kinda hoping the LP can poll 15% and get on the debate stage. I'd love to see that Kristallnacht comment during a debate being watched by 40 million people.
posted by Justinian at 6:44 PM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


Gary Johnson probably would, and I'd have said the same about Jill Stein except for her recent terrible AMA where she said Trump was better than Hillary. Gary is so anti-authoritarian that Trump is pretty much his worst nightmare (Trump's platform is essentially anti-libertarian in every possible way).
posted by stolyarova at 6:45 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Stein really said that? Holy shit.
posted by futz at 6:46 PM on May 20, 2016


She did.
First off I agree with the comment below that it's hard to say which is the greater evil. Trump recently came out for higher taxes on the rich and raising the minimum wage. Hillary can't figure out what minimum wage she supports, and she actually as Secretary of State pushed wages lower in Haiti, from 60 cents and hour down to 40 cents an hour! It's not clear which one is the bigger warhawk, and Donald seems more receptive to stopping corporate trade agreements than Hillary who's been a cheerleader for predatory trade agreements starting with NAFTA. Now Hillary is going after Republican donors and Republican voters. We are seeing the two corporate parties converge into one.

The politics of fear says you have to vote against the candidate you fear rather than for the candidate who shares your values. That fear campaign needs to be called out as self-serving propaganda for the political establish. In fact, this politics of fear delivered everything we were afraid of. All the reasons you are told to vote for a lesser evil, because you didn't want the Wall Street bailouts, or the expanding war, or growing student debt, or shipping our jobs overseas, or the attack on immigrant rights, all those things we've gotten by the droves because we allowed ourselves to be silenced. In fact, the lesser evil paves the way to the great evil... because the base won't come out to vote for a lesser evil Democrat who is throwing everyday people under the bus so the Republicans will win anyhow even after you've voted in the lesser evil.

Democracy does not need more fear and silence. Democracy needs a moral compass. We have to be that moral compass. It's time to forget the lesser evil and fight for the greater good!
IMO, her hatred for Clinton has blinded her to Trump's greater danger.
posted by stolyarova at 6:49 PM on May 20, 2016 [12 favorites]


Even with a pretty simple message of Black Lives Matter there was an attempt to shame BLM activists into admitting that All Lives Matter and while that probably disarmed the movement in the eyes of red state conservatives the BLM movement has steadfastly refused to surrender their rhetoric and message.

In contrast I feel like Occupy and the Bernie Movement have attempted to capitalize on widespread economic frustration and in many ways have had decent rhetoric and messaging but both were often handicapped by the failure to bridge disparate groups with an inclusive and intersectional strategy. The result has been that Bernie really failed to ignite any real significant support with African American and Latino voters who are increasingly becoming the kingmakers in terms of Democratic politics.

Clinton lost in 2008 because Obama had a better ground game and he had better strength in the AA community and it's clear that she's spent 8 years fixing those issues. She had a vastly superior field operation to Sanders and she's spent 8 years actively courting the AA community. Combined with her open appreciation for Obama's successes and her active participation in the Obama administration and it was really no question that despite some past missteps she was going to dominate among those minority populations.

Nevada allowed her to slow Bernie's progress and she's been ascendant (with some brief narrowing of the margins) ever since SC. I've actually been surprised that he's been as competitive as he has been but that's mainly fueled by massive fundraising and massive ad buys because his ground game has been pretty much garbage.
posted by vuron at 6:49 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


To be precise she said it was hard to say which was more evil and then went into a spiel about various bullshit ways that Trump is supposedly better than Clinton. For example saying that Trump says he'll raise taxes on the rich. Which is, you know, the exact opposite of the truth. Stein is pretty much an idiot.
posted by Justinian at 6:50 PM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


Stein really said that?

And Ralph Nader came pretty close the other day too. There is something about the Green Party that perhaps I don't understand.
posted by bongo_x at 6:52 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


I knew of other reasons that I considered wacky but that AMA comment... yikes
posted by futz at 6:52 PM on May 20, 2016


I think the leaders of the Green party are wacky heighten the contradiction types. So they see Clinton as a bigger threat because she won't destroy the country leading to a glorious Green future.
posted by Justinian at 6:54 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Greens (and the left in general) probably see the Democrats as more disappointing or more of a problem because there is at least some connection there. They don't agree on everything, but there is some overlap between the two groups and it's always harder when someone who you agree with on most things has some BIG IMPORTANT ISSUE where they differ. It's no different from people in these threads that have commented on how they have rifts with friends/family where they once had none because some issue that's never come up before came up and it showed a division. If you're in agreement on the rest, those little differences become bigger. And they hurt more. And so many Greens/etc. react much more strongly to the differences with the Democrats than they do with the Republicans.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:05 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


[Coupla comments deleted; probably things will go better if we just skip the calling-people-morons part of the program.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:05 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Green Party has always been pretty high on the false equivalency burn the whole thing down sort of bullshit arguments.

Which is basically why so many people pretty much view them as the party of the "privilege denying dude" because while there might be some vague truth to their assertions the reality is that no things can be dramatically worse for many Americans under a Republican administration.
posted by vuron at 7:06 PM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


Hmm, I don't know much about the Greens, but I think Stein senses this is a great opportunity to get some Bernie or Bust supporters. It's smart to go on Reddit and doing an AMA, seeing as how it's unofficially the Sanders Campaign virtual HQ (sorry, Second Life).
posted by FJT at 7:07 PM on May 20, 2016


The comments that I have seen about her from bernie folks are not positive due to her opinions on homeopathy.
posted by futz at 7:12 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


The best was on Mother's Day when Jill Stein said Hillary Clinton didn't reflect the values of being a mom. Exactly the kind of essentialist retrograde judgmental sexism I want in a progressive party!
posted by sallybrown at 7:12 PM on May 20, 2016 [27 favorites]


her opinions on homeopathy

oh noooo
posted by sallybrown at 7:13 PM on May 20, 2016 [7 favorites]


Meh, the Green Party is facing an uphill battle to even get on the ballot in a bunch of states and Bernie has basically sucked all of the air (and probably most of the available cash) out of the left margins of the US political spectrum.

Yes there are some Bernie or Bust types that will sign on to Stein but most will go the way of the PUMA and back down from the brink.

Of course the most vocal will be the douchebros will somehow occupy the inexplicable overlap area in a Venn diagram of Bernie Supporters and Gamergate truthers. And let's be honest a lot of those guys are already on /pol/ and r/thedonald.

I'm just concerned that the rhetoric of the "stolen election" will get some passionate supporters to drop out of the process altogether.
posted by vuron at 7:15 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


homeopathy

Ah, that explains why she hasn't figured out that getting 0.36% of the vote doesn't actually do anything.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:19 PM on May 20, 2016 [53 favorites]


I have not looked into her platform or beliefs but I see the homeopathy thing connected to her everywhere so please don't rely on me as to whether it is actually true. i can't be bothered to actually look into it.
posted by futz at 7:30 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


It seems like she's not just pandering to the homeopathy crowd but has chimed in with some FUD concerning vaccines in an attempt to appeal to the anti-vaxxer crowd.

I understand she's a politician now but would it be possible for Harvard Medical School to retract her diploma for being a pandering coward?
posted by vuron at 7:34 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


I believe the homeopathy thing comes from the fact that the Green Party platform contains:
We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches.
Since Jill Stein went to Harvard Medical school so I really hope she doesn't actually believe in homepathy. But her platform does specifically support funding it so....
posted by Justinian at 7:34 PM on May 20, 2016


I don't get enough people hawking essential oil pyramid schemes on my Facebook, I would like to hear more about the healing powers of lavender from the Oval Office.
posted by sallybrown at 7:37 PM on May 20, 2016 [21 favorites]


From what I've heard, pro-science GP members tend to view that plank of the party as a pretty craven attempt to bring in enough members from the alt medicine scene to hit their funding/debate/whatever thresholds, after which the woo contingent will be tossed away. Which, after this year's GOP debacle, doesn't really sound like a great plan.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:44 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Some people on Reddit are claiming that Stein has said she personally disagrees with the homeopathy part of the party's platform. For what that's worth.

I also think caring about the Green Party position on homeopathy is about as useful as asking my local school board candidates for their positions on nuclear disarmament.
posted by zachlipton at 7:45 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


as useful as asking my local school board candidates for their positions on nuclear disarmament.

No. That would be slightly useful. It would be like asking local school board candidates if they approve of students wearing condoms during the entire school day for their protection.
posted by Talez at 7:48 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


What's the official Green Party position on tiger-repelling rocks?
posted by dersins at 7:52 PM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


Well chafing might be a problem but I can pretty much guarantee nobody is going to be having sex if they are forced to wear a condom for 8+ hours 5 days a week.
posted by vuron at 7:54 PM on May 20, 2016


Well no Green Party candidate has ever been mauled by a tiger, have they? I think you have your answer.
posted by Justinian at 7:54 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]


Actually Green party candidate/activist David Villalobos was mauled in 2013 when he jumped into the tiger enclosure at the Bronx zoo. He would later explain his actions as a spiritual thing.
posted by humanfont at 8:05 PM on May 20, 2016 [38 favorites]


...

Ok then. Well shit.
posted by Justinian at 8:10 PM on May 20, 2016 [31 favorites]


RE: Love trumps hate.

This is near the top of /r/the_dingus. It's definitely not a good clinton slogan, especially when it's so difficult to get half of the country to notice/admit/care if they're doing hurtful or even hateful things.
posted by sandswipe at 8:17 PM on May 20, 2016


Do we know that he actually had his tiger repelling rock at that moment though? Maybe he failed to bring it that day to the zoo and thus was deprived of it's tiger repelling aura?

Personally I hope that Stein doesn't actually buy into the woo but honestly there are a ton of woo believers on both the far left and far right. I've had some people explain to me that the reality is that the political spectrum isn't really just mapped in two dimensions, the political spectrum is actually just a two dimensional depiction of a three dimensional object (like a cylinder or sphere) and the far right and far left actually meet on the other side of the object.
posted by vuron at 8:20 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


It is simply that leftists tend to engage in critique and are more comfortable doing it.

So where does "We know where you live. We know where your children go to school." fall as far as critique?

I mean I know you're trying to frame this in nice, abstract, academic terms, but people who are getting continual death threats in the style of gamergate may not see the value.

My impression is that while Sanders and his core group may see his critiques as an intellectual exercise in speaking truth to power, his online campaigners, informed by the tactics of anonymous and 4Chan see them as a way to vent their anger on the vulnerable, cloaked in ideological terminology.
posted by happyroach at 8:29 PM on May 20, 2016 [11 favorites]


I was excited about Sanders early on and really wanted him to get the nomination but at this point I would have a hard time making myself vote for Bernie even if it was between him and Trump. Too much nastiness around him lately and he has too little to say about it.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:55 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


See, that's what some his supporters say too except about Clinton. I'm not happy about what's been going on either but I'd still vote for Sanders without a single qualm.
posted by Justinian at 9:00 PM on May 20, 2016 [11 favorites]


I also think caring about the Green Party position on homeopathy is about as useful as asking my local school board candidates for their positions on nuclear disarmament.

I agree, it's just funny that they have one at all. What is their position on body hair; shave or all natural? Toilet paper rolls; over or under?

I'm off to check the party platform on the "Top Sheet With Duvet Cover" question before I make up my mind. I'm not saying I'm a single issue voter, but you have to have a moral compass.
posted by bongo_x at 9:12 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


WAR IS PEACE.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
TRUMP HATES LOVE.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:22 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


[Couple comments deleted. Please don't use edit to add content -- just make a second comment. It's confusing when people are reading two different versions of your comment.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:53 PM on May 20, 2016


I should clarify that I WOULD vote for Sanders over Trump, I would vote for a rabid skunk over Trump. But I wouldn't be happy about it and I would leave the booth a bit disgusted right now.

Which feels weird considering a few weeks ago I was very disappointed that he was not doing better in the primaries.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:15 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's strange, or perhaps telling, as a statement of the self-reflexive nature of the internet, that conversations about Bernie Sanders draws from this critique of a few people. Like, let's create this strawman, these meme of "the bro," and just run it until exhaustion. Ten million supporters by popular vote, and we're talking about 4chan like this is somehow relevant to the talking points of the Sanders campaign.
posted by iamck at 12:45 AM on May 21, 2016 [12 favorites]


Well, the talking point of the Sanders campaign seems to be "the DNC is corrupt and should be burned down," so when his young, presumably more tech savvy supporters take that and use the bullying tools tech gives them to harass DNC members, it seems to be fair game as a discussion point.
posted by snickerdoodle at 4:01 AM on May 21, 2016 [19 favorites]


The main reason the Nevada incident and the harassment is still a discussion point is because Bernie's response to it was awful. Instead his response added fuel to the fire.
posted by chris24 at 4:11 AM on May 21, 2016 [21 favorites]


Erick Erickson is still calling for Romney to run as a third party candidate: "No one wants to vote for a candidate because they are against the other candidate. People want to vote for a candidate because they like that candidate. Romney could provide that."

Up is down, hot is cold, Romney is likable.
posted by peeedro at 4:26 AM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


Erick Erickson is still calling for Romney to run as a third party candidate: "No one wants to vote for a candidate because they are against the other candidate. People want to vote for a candidate because they like that candidate. Romney could provide that."

That would hand Clinton the election on a silver platter.
posted by Talez at 5:28 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I look around at who are my friends posting on Facebook about Never Shillary feel the Bern and I make connections and find patterns. And these are my friends, people I care about and like and whose judgment, for a lot of things, I like very much. They are not gamergaters! But they are, at least so far, minimum 3rd generation American-born on at least one side, doing worse than their parents (not worse than their peers, but their parents did very well) with a meaningful private social and economic safety net to fall back on.

They're my friends and I'm not criticizing their basic humanity or intelligence. But when their posts get too incessant I do unfollow them because it's hard not to feel that to the extent they believe what they are saying about Clinton and the Democratic party, it can take a lot of mental and emotional energy to keep reminding myself that probably deep down they respect my basic humanity, judgment, and intelligence too, and it feels more sensible to fall back a bit and wait out the season.
posted by Salamandrous at 5:34 AM on May 21, 2016 [7 favorites]




Sanders campaign down to less than $6 million in cash, with a bern rate of $40 million a month.
posted by chris24 at 6:41 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Then it's a good thing I wasn't blaming all our problems on the rich.
posted by sotonohito

Yes and it's also a good thing that I wasn't blaming you for blaming all our problems on "the rich," but blaming your candidate for having a message that doesn't resonate with the experience of a substantial number of voters.

But I do think blaming the economic problems (not all problems, just the economic ones) on the people hoarding all the money isn't exactly unreasonable.

We have many economic problems, but on the other hand we are at relatively low unemployment, with low inflation, with begrudgingly rising wages, with a single digit uninsured rate for the first time in history, and with the stock markets (on which many middle class retirements and educations depend) in relatively robust shape even after raising interest rates a notch. "Hoarding money" is a problem, but it doesn't explain the global economic transformations that have had such a storied effect on American workers (in ways that have also provided benefits that are rarely the subject of political rhetorical accounting). I agree that income inequality and low tax rates on investment wealth and incentives to keep wealth offshore are major, serious economic problems that hold up the obvious massive needed investment in infrastructure, science, and education for renewable energy and fighting climate change and maintaining worker productivity (but so is massive investment in the military, and I'm with a good portion of the right in seeing fraud, abuse, and corruption as significant economic drains across our economy, including the massive informal economy tied to the continued insanity of drug laws and the carceral state). So broadly, I agree with your analysis of the problem.

The difference is that I don't see Bernie Sanders as the solution. I think incremental building on Pres. Obama's not so modest successes is more likely to deliver economic justice and long term change, especially if the left acts as a real constituency of the democratic party and not as a fringe movement too concerned with the perfect to pursue the good (exactly what my initial hope was for the Sanders campaign, like many of my left but pragmatic friends).

I don't think Bernie can do anything about income inequality as president, even if he could win (which he can't, and if you can't see the ads that would destroy Bernie, you're not imagining hard enough). And even if he could win, I don't consider him a credible president along other equally important dimensions of competence for the job, something I have come to realize as his campaign has continued without developing beyond his economic justice arguments. (Ah, you will say, Clinton has proved only that she is incompetent at military policy or diplomacy, to which I will say, I would prefer experienced incompetence to an untested idealist's hand on the apparatus of military power, thank you, especially since I've never seen anyone succeed in those domains without also making major mistakes, to wit, one Barack Obama -- does anyone think Bernie would be a better president than Obama on foreign policy or military strategy? If so, on what basis? And Obama has made grave errors in the course of gaining his experience, and still been an order of magnitude better than any republican we could have had in the office). I also think those arguments suffer from being placed in a context of theoretical abstraction ("Denmark does it why can't we?") that is all to familiar to me from spending my life in academia around the exact sort of leftist yet privileged folks I see defending Bernie most assertively. It's a bubble, no less than the right wing ideological bubble.

It comes down to pragmatism vs. idealism. But if you're gonna back the idealist, then it's incumbent to admit that for all his authenticity and theoretical force of his analysis and utopian quality of his economic vision, he's never done anything to prove he is capable of actually leading a diverse nation in a dangerous world at a critical time. We can agree to disagree if this is the best option when the alternative is Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. But realistically it never was an alternative and it won't be now.
posted by spitbull at 7:09 AM on May 21, 2016 [22 favorites]


Well, the talking point of the Sanders campaign seems to be "the DNC is corrupt and should be burned down," so when his young, presumably more tech savvy supporters take that and use the bullying tools tech gives them to harass DNC members, it seems to be fair game as a discussion point.

Not only is that a hyperbolic exaggeration of the Sanders campaign talking points but it doesn't change the fact that you're singling out an extreme violent minority as representative for millions of people. Which most of the time we don't endorse around here. I suppose it's "fair game" if this is just a rhetorical competition of mud-slinging, which is what politics is, after all. And I can see the Clinton campaign delighting in Nevada as an attempt to link Sanders to violence. But any attempt to try and hold Sanders responsible for death threats is ludicrous, and I would expect a little more nuance around these parts.
posted by iamck at 7:16 AM on May 21, 2016 [10 favorites]


you're singling out an extreme violent minority as representative for millions of people

An extreme minority, absolutely, but one that Sanders has yet to strongly disavow for some god-knows-what reason?? It would make great political (not to mention MORAL) sense to come out and strongly condemn this bullshit Gamergateism in direct, clear, simple terms (not the weak tea he's offered so far), so why isn't he? I truly don't think he as a person or the really good people surrounding him (Jane Sanders, for one) support this gross behavior, so I'm at a loss here. Either he has too much on his plate right now, he has advisors who are wrongheadedly not making this a priority, he's afraid to piss off this gross small flank of his supporters (perhaps he thinks they are larger in number than you or I do?), or...what else am I missing?
posted by sallybrown at 7:25 AM on May 21, 2016 [26 favorites]


Sanders campaign down to less than $6 million in cash, with a bern rate of $40 million a month.
Even as he racked up primary victories last month and sharpened his attacks against the former secretary of state, online donors started holding back. Sanders raised considerably less in April than his record-setting $46 million in March or $43.5 million in February.
Everyone realized the math wouldn't work except the campaign. I mean, shit, I donated both those months then saw the writing on the wall after the March 15th clobbering.
posted by Talez at 7:29 AM on May 21, 2016


I have no idea why Sanders has not directly, explicitly, and unequivocally called out the people making threats and misogynistic comments and made it clear that those people do not represent the values of his campaign and that he has no use for their "help." At this point, it seems inexcusable that he hasn't.
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:30 AM on May 21, 2016 [22 favorites]


And I can see the Clinton campaign delighting in Nevada as an attempt to link Sanders to violence.

You have to think pretty low of someone to think they take delight in someone getting swamped with disgusting voicemails calling her a bitch and cunt and threatening violence against her and her family. I'm pretty sure the reaction to that from any halfway decent person is disgust, not delight. Not everything is just another opportunity for point scoring.
posted by sallybrown at 7:30 AM on May 21, 2016 [30 favorites]


Look, this is what's so frustrating. Sanders had no problem earlier in the year calling on Trump to strongly disavow the violent minority of the people attending his rallies. He knows that's the right thing to do - and the presidential thing to do.

So when he had the opportunity to do the same thing with what happened in Nevada, he went all "but..." about it. That was not a good look, and I was really disappointed to see it. He needed to do the same thing he was calling on Trump to do and make it clear that violence (including the vile misogynism and doxxing against so many women in leadership positions in the Democratic party) has absolutely no place in his campaign.

I don't see any "delight". I haven't seen Clinton crowing about how, see, Sanders is awful. What I have seen are people rightly concerned about how the violent rhetoric deployed by the minority is being winked at instead of strongly and quickly shut down hard, as it should be. I've seen frustration that women are, once again, being treated as collateral (or as the enemy) because their personal safety and dignity is second to anything else.

People have made the comparison to Gamergate, and that's right on. Misogyny toward women in public positions is a huge, visible problem in American society right now. Nevada isn't an isolated event. It's part of a much larger picture, and Sanders had the opportunity to put himself on the right side of the issue by not only strongly condemning it (with no weaselly half-apologies and justifications) but reaching out publicly to people like Lange. He's getting the pushback he rightly deserves. I'm not blaming him for the violent actions of a few - I'm blaming him for his own weak response right now.
posted by Salieri at 7:35 AM on May 21, 2016 [57 favorites]


And btw, a lot of us here calling Bernie out for this are very much not Clinton supporters. I donated to Bernie's campaign (as well as Hillary's), I really liked the energy he brought to the race at first, I'm not voting Hillary in the primary as a protest against her foreign policy and my frustration with the Clinton Foundation stuff...my objection to Bernie's behavior here is coming from a place of love, not point scoring.
posted by sallybrown at 7:38 AM on May 21, 2016 [11 favorites]


I think incremental building on Pres. Obama's not so modest successes is more likely to deliver economic justice and long term change, especially if the left acts as a real constituency of the democratic party and not as a fringe movement too concerned with the perfect to pursue the good (exactly what my initial hope was for the Sanders campaign, like many of my left but pragmatic friends).

I basically agree with you but I don't see how incrementalism is a possibility with the current Congress (specifically the House). In the past 6 years I can think of only one instance of actual legislative progressive advances (a permanent Medicare doc payment fix) and that in itself is pretty wonk-y. I could be wrong, talk me down please, but is there anything that has happened through Congress in a positive and meaningful direction since the GOP took over the gerrymandered-to-hell lower chamber?

I welcome and cheer on DGAF OBAMA because he is (after 7 reluctant years) embracing energy-in-the-executive as a non-optimal-but-best-of-bad-options strategy for getting things done (eg. executive action on deportations, overtime, trans issues).

For the next four years, though, what is the strategy? I've come down more on the "articulate a strong narrative" side in these threads but on the other side there is of course the need to deliver things, not merely for politics' sake (i.e. to demonstrate that the Dems are the party of getting things done vs. the GOP party of NO) but also because, obviously, there are things that need to be done that haven't gotten done in these last 6 obstructionist years.

My opinion is that Sec. Clinton has been just as bad or disingenuous as Sen. Sanders on making pie-in-the-sky claims about what can be done. I know, that's probably just what has to happen to get the nod. But I hope that she will be more clear going forward about her plans for what can, realistically, be done to move the ball forward through the machinery actually available to her as head of the federal administration.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:38 AM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]



Erick Erickson is still calling for Romney to run as a third party candidate: "No one wants to vote for a candidate because they are against the other candidate. People want to vote for a candidate because they like that candidate. Romney could provide that."

That would hand Clinton the election on a silver platter.


It's sacrificing the White House to preserve control of Congress.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:44 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


It still means that the person on top of the Republican ticket is Donald Trump, though.

The only way they can actually step away from him at this point is to actually try everything possible to step away from him by rules-lawyering at the convention. Right now they're basically all stepping forward to kiss the ring.

I really really hope people are paying attention so that these assholes can be thoroughly mocked and spat upon by the electorate when they try to do the wide-eyed "I do not know the man!" thing in October. This better not go in the memory hole.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:51 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's sacrificing the White House to preserve control of Congress.

I'm not sure I get the logic here - I mean, I know that some particularly effective winning presidential candidates have "coattails", but how would having, in effect, a second Republican candidate going to help downstream races? I imagine most Republicans will still vote for congressional and statehouse candidates of their own party even if they don't like the presidential contender, won't they?
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:51 AM on May 21, 2016


I imagine most Republicans will still vote for congressional and statehouse candidates of their own party even if they don't like the presidential contender, won't they?

If #nevertrump stays home it won't help downballot candidates.
posted by Talez at 7:55 AM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I can see it helping keep Congress for the Rs IF it's true that whole upper middle class / white collar professional (Wall Street, law firm, consultants, etc) / country club / Rockefeller Republican / Reagan Democrat coalition (a) can be depended on to vote for downticket R's; (b) will not turn out to vote for Donald (incl. voting for Donald purely to vote against Hillary); and (c) will not turn out to vote for Hillary (to save their country from Donald); but (d) would turn out to vote for Romney. And I'm not sure that's a realistic expectation.
posted by sallybrown at 8:02 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am struck by how insanely restricted our electoral system is by the most mundane limitations. Third party runs would be somewhat more practical is there weren't state ballot restrictions- like say if you had a standard national candidacy section. The threat of "people staying home" would not exist if voting was mandatory. These aren't even systemic changes like getting rid of first-past-the-post. These are fixed are many other democracies have already implemented.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:46 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have no idea why Sanders has not directly, explicitly, and unequivocally called out the people making threats and misogynistic comment

The Nevada incident and the gamergatesque aftermath is presidential-class test of leadership which, so far, Senator Sanders is failing badly.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:47 AM on May 21, 2016 [8 favorites]


It's sacrificing the White House to preserve control of Congress.

This is an interesting thought. I'm just speculating here, but that certainly could make sense:

For the Republicans to ensure they don't lose the Senate (and possibly, though it is VERY unlikely, the house) they'll need a real concerted, organized effort to get the vote out.

For Republican GOTV, it's not the country club set that matters--there's not that many of them, and they don't really organize in that way. Evangelical Christians, often organizing through church groups, have been the beating heart of the GOP ground game for awhile now, and they need someone at the top of the ticket they can work for.

Trump's support does include quite a lot of self-described evangelicals, but, crucially, these folks--despite considering themselves evangelicals--often are not actually church-goers. Those are folks who, on average, are less educated and less affluent than other evangelicals, which means they have less time and less opportunity (as well as, sometimes, less inclination) to organize, volunteer and get the vote out.

But Trump has shown little interest (or aptitude) for establishing that sort of ground game, or for attracting the folks that traditionally have been the biggest part of getting out the vote for Republicans. He hasn't really needed to during the primary because his opposition was largely either incompetent, as poorly-organized as he was, or despised by huge swaths of the GOP establishment.

Romney is far from an ideal candidate for this for a number of reasons (people are kind of meh about him; also he is Mormon), but he does have at least four important things going for him:

1. The entire GOP base already knows who he is--and so do the big donors.
2. He is not Donald Trump. It is not implausible that someone who is a sincerely devout evangelical Christian might look at Trump and see perhaps the least [C/c]hristian (in both the big-C literal sense and the little-c moral sense) GOP presidential candidate in a long time. Romney (even if he is LDS), is at least not performing a cartoonish caricature of actual evil.
3. Donald Trump did not already kick his ass in a bunch of primaries and caucuses.
4. He is available.

Though there could be another potential (R) candidate who meets these very limited criteria, I can't actually think of one off-hand, which really doesn't speak well

As I said at the beginning of this comment, I'm obviously totally speculating, but if Erickson was thinking "to hell will the Presidency we need to hold Congress," the reasoning might be something like this.
posted by dersins at 9:50 AM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders supporters planning four rallies during the Democratic convention.

When this kind of thing is happening--at that scale--independent of a campaign, it is clear the campaign has lost control of its own messaging.

Which is fine if you're running a protest movement and trying to raise awareness on key issues, but can be a fucking disaster if you're actually trying to win.
posted by dersins at 9:53 AM on May 21, 2016 [10 favorites]


it is clear the campaign has lost control of its own messaging

The thing that irks me the most about Berners is their careless use of the term "revolution." When I hear comfortable or mostly comfortable middle class white people throwing that word around, what I hear is "I don't read very much history at all." I genuinely never want to see a revolution in my lifetime. Revolutions are mob violence and endless reprisals. They're uncontrollable by their very nature. It's not like the Jacobins said "hey, let's fuck up France for two generations minimum." It's not like the Bolsheviks said "hey, let's set the table for a genocidal strongman tyrant to reign for years."

I get that they hang that little figleaf of "political" revolution on it, but that's not the direction a lot of his supporters have taken it in. I get the allure of it - reforming government is a tedious, frustrating process which never seems to complete. It's so much more attractive and exciting to say "let's smash everything and start over with us in charge!" There's a simple appeal to that, makes a great elevator pitch to people who were already pretty sure they were right about everything to begin with. I'm not surprised at all that now they're turning to conspiracy theories for comfort. "The party screwed us!" is a much more attractive narrative than "we made our case to the voters and they were not convinced."

I live in an overwhelmingly white, kneejerk liberal college town which I should have moved out of at least three years ago, so this nomination contest has been exhausting. I tried to watch the first couple debates with Berners and it was intolerable. They would talk over every single other candidate, then hang on every sanctimony-stoking word their guy had to say. They didn't need to hear a single one of Clinton or anyone else's points before they knew they disagreed. This is all anecdotal of course, but a lot of the Berners in my town have an almost religious adoration for this finger-wagging, self-righteous idealogue that has turned me off completely. I'm in broad agreement with a lot of Sanders' positions, but the way they're pitched is so "you're with us or YOU'RE A CAPITALIST SHILL WHY AREN'T YOU WITH US" that I plain can't get down. This is the case they mean to make to Purple America? It won't play. Thank god he's been defeated in this nomination process. I hope he recognizes that he's lost, and soon.

(ps - I make a special effort to never call him "Bernie" because we're not on a first name basis because ffs the President isn't supposed to be your buddy)
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:22 AM on May 21, 2016 [34 favorites]


I basically agree with you but I don't see how incrementalism is a possibility with the current Congress (specifically the House). In the past 6 years I can think of only one instance of actual legislative progressive advances (a permanent Medicare doc payment fix) and that in itself is pretty wonk-y. I could be wrong, talk me down please, but is there anything that has happened through Congress in a positive and meaningful direction since the GOP took over the gerrymandered-to-hell lower chamber?

We don't elect a president to run Congress. We elect a president to appoint judges, make executive rules, veto legislation, and set the narrative - in that order. The most recent example of incremental change came this week when the Department of Labor changed overtime rules for salaried positions, which will affect millions of Americans (MeFi thread in case you missed it). Federal policy in this country isn't just conducted by the legislature. At this point, given Congress' notorious gridlock, I would argue that the courts and the executive are far more effective at resolving our most pressing problems.

Take climate change. While we sit and watch Congress not even consider cap and trade, the executive branch has been working across Departments to get to work. We will never build another coal power plant in this country - thanks to EPA rule making. Funding for renewable R&D has skyrocketed thanks to the DoE. Solar projects have been fast tracked on public lands thanks to Interior. Taken together, it's creating a climate where renewable energy is an industry that will grow, giving them more money and therefore political influence, and future efforts to implement some kind of climate change legislation more likely.

The era of big, important legislation is effectively dead for the time being in this country. Courts and executive actions are where everything happens. Presidents have enormous ability to guide the ship in totally unsexy ways that don't get a lot of attention but that, cumulatively, result in a very different course for the country. LBJ was a master of legislative action. Clinton, and her team, have an incredible depth of experience on the executive side, which is far more important given the current political climate.
posted by one_bean at 10:37 AM on May 21, 2016 [29 favorites]


Trump's support does include quite a lot of self-described evangelicals, but, crucially, these folks--despite considering themselves evangelicals--often are not actually church-goers.

I hate how this point keeps getting buried. On the one hand, it makes me feel like I’m no-true-scotsmanning self-described evangelicals. (“No! Just because you say you’re one doesn’t mean you qualify!”) On the other, if the notion of the religious right is to have meaning, it would seem to need to cover those who actively practice their religion, not just those who want to wrap themselves in its mantle. But then, I certainly wouldn’t police Catholics in the same way…
posted by Going To Maine at 10:41 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Back to the I'm With Her thing, I really like it as an organizing slogan. It's short, it's punchy, and it's unambiguous. Where it falls down--where Yes We Can was a success--is that it's something Clinton can't really use herself all the time. She can in some ways; "Your mother, your sister, your daughter, your friend--I'm with her." That works.

What works even better is for Clinton to respond to I'm With Her with "I'm With You."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:45 AM on May 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm willing to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt. If you believe the insider accounts, Sanders simply couldn't believe the terrible things that were reported and discounted them.

Presumably Barbara Boxer, who actually witnessed some of the events, straightened him out. Dick Durbin also talked to him. By all accounts Sanders has always had very friendly relations with his colleagues in the Senate. He doesn't have a reputation for bitterness or anger in his political relations. We will see in the remaining few weeks of the campaign whether he tones down his more incendiary statements.

Sanders was a flawed messenger for his cause, but at least he advanced a conversation that otherwise would never have seen the light of day.

I'm guessing that by the end of the primary season and July rolls around, Sanders will have made peace with the fact that he isn't going to be nominated and will unite with Clinton in the battle against their common enemy, Donald Trump and the Republicans.
posted by JackFlash at 10:52 AM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump's support does include quite a lot of self-described evangelicals, but, crucially, these folks--despite considering themselves evangelicals--often are not actually church-goers. Those are folks who, on average, are less educated and less affluent than other evangelicals, which means they have less time and less opportunity (as well as, sometimes, less inclination) to organize, volunteer and get the vote out.

This. I think the evangelical bloc is potentially in play. Not fully, not all this cycle. But the crackup between them and the libertarian elite has been happening for at least ten years now.

Religiously observant, regularly churchgoing conservative white Protestants have long voted Republican, but they do not like brash, boastful, foul-mouthed politicians particularly when those politicians do not have a history of engagement with and respect for them. (There's maybe a bit of a parallel here with Sen. Sanders's recent difficulty with connecting to African-Americans.) The community places a high value on politeness and propriety and, well, conservatism! suspicion of big loud promises and grand gestures! - it's very much a Guess culture to Trump's big-city Ask personality.

Whereas I think a lot of evangelical-identified people who don't go to church more than once or twice a year at best are culturally quite different, although for the last few generations both groups have voted Republican and basically have been considered to be in the same bucket by the punditry. I'm really trying not to be cartoonish or stereotyping here, but it's sort of a Ned Flanders / Homer Simpson distinction? Like, I can see Homer voting for Trump but I think Ned would be giving side-eye.

Now I'm thinking about subdivisions of evangelical. I wouldn't be surprised if more hierarchical, establishment-minded evangelicals (conservative Presbyterians, Lutherans and so on) really start to think about a separate vehicle for political action. I don't know what that would look like. Or, hang on, there might be a class issue here between middle-class and working-class evangelicals.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:53 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


on non-preview:

But then, I certainly wouldn’t police Catholics in the same way…

True -- in the sense that there's not a great way to make an objective determination about someone's religion beyond self-identification.

But sociologically I think there's a huge gap between Catholics who attend Mass weekly vs. C&E folks or people who purely identify as Catholic as a quasi-ethnic heritage, in terms of how they vote. That's not to say that Catholics who attend Mass weekly are all, or even mostly, Republican but I bet they are more conservative on abortion and gay marriage and are probably more likely to vote R.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:59 AM on May 21, 2016


Sanders campaign down to less than $6 million in cash, with a bern rate of $40 million a month.

It's pretty ironic that Bernie, while attacking the role of money in politics, has run the most expensive primary campaign in history. (And has so little to show for it.)
posted by msalt at 11:00 AM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Erick Erickson is still calling for Romney to run as a third party candidate ...That would hand Clinton the election on a silver platter.

Not necessarily. If a third party candidate can win a big state or two and hold Hillary below 270 electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the Republican House of Representatives.

I see this as the real strategy. Kind of a Hail Mary but one with a real chance of keeping the Republican establishment in charge.
posted by msalt at 11:04 AM on May 21, 2016


That's not to say that Catholics who attend Mass weekly are all, or even mostly, Republican but I bet they are more conservative on abortion and gay marriage and are probably more likely to vote R.

I was under the impression that Catholics as a bloc lean left, compared to other self-identified Christians in the U.S. But that may be from including those of us who are culturally Catholic but don't practice / are agnostic in the sample.
posted by sallybrown at 11:15 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Catholics, as well as those who are religious or otherwise socially conservative but economically lean left, don't exactly have a party in American politics.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:17 AM on May 21, 2016


It may also have to do with the most common ethnic communities tied to Catholicism in the US being part of the working class / labor base of the Democrats?
posted by sallybrown at 11:19 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]




I still don't understand how that strategy is supposed to work. Democrats got an absolute majority or near-majority in states making up more than 1/2 the electoral college in both 2008 and 2012. Where is this magical 10-15% of the electorate that voted for Obama in '08 and '12 but so loathes Clinton that they will vote for a weird offshoot Republican-ish third party in enough numbers to bring Clinton's share of the vote in even one purple state down to the 30 or 35% needed to give the third party candidate some electoral votes?

It's the level of logic of a bad sitcom where the younger sibling complains that the older sibling's half of the sandwich is bigger and then the older sibling cuts the younger's part in half and says "hey look now you get two pieces and I only have one YOU WIN".

If they actually care more about #neverTrump then they need to ruleslawyer him out of a first-ballot win not come up with ridiculous rubegoldberg schemes.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:20 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was under the impression that Catholics as a bloc lean left, compared to other self-identified Christians in the U.S. But that may be from including those of us who are culturally Catholic but don't practice / are agnostic in the sample.

I think a podcast I was listening to the other day (slate politics? the gist?) was mentioning that Catholics basically vote like, uh, humans. As far as I understand it, Catholics as a bloc have tended to vote Democratic since the days of the Know-Nothings - which doesn't necessarily say anything one way or the other about their position on a post-1968 ideological scale.

Catholics, as well as those who are religious or otherwise socially conservative but economically lean left, don't exactly have a party in American politics.

haha that link is exactly the kind of thing I was just scrounging around the internet for. I expect the call for a new socially conservative / economically somewhat left party to get louder over the next few months.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:30 AM on May 21, 2016


The thing that irks me the most about Berners is their careless use of the term "revolution." When I hear comfortable or mostly comfortable middle class white people throwing that word around, what I hear is "I don't read very much history at all." I genuinely never want to see a revolution in my lifetime. Revolutions are mob violence and endless reprisals.

Wikipedia has a category nonviolent revolutions that includes many of the color revolutions of recent decades and following through to non-English Wikipedia versions on a few of the articles seems to confirm that using "revolution" this way is standard even in other languages, so I think this is conventional usage rather than a fig leaf.

I'd agree that many people speak of revolution without appearing to appreciate the gravity of even just the societal upheaval that can result from disruption of an established order and established institutions, but I don't think it's much more ignorant or self-centered than for example comfortable middle class Americans supporting status quo U.S. militarism and enthusiasm for Henry Kissinger.
posted by XMLicious at 11:35 AM on May 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


If a third party candidate can win a big state or two and hold Hillary below 270 electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the Republican House of Representatives.

I keep seeing this being kicked around as a possibility, but it requires a very, very specific sort of candidate, one with geographically targeted appeal and either no influence on the rest of the race or an ideologically balanced influence elsewhere which draws down both frontrunners equally.

Romney is too Republican with no geographical base of support. He splits Republicans everywhere and doesn't steal any single state. The closest person I can see to fulfilling this role is John Kasich, with a nice definite Ohio bloc and very limited support elsewhere. But I think even he is too Republican --- Democrats aren't going to cross the aisle for him, while Republicans who had resigned themselves to Trump would shift to support him (establishment Republicans who had resigned themselves to Trump would shift to support a ham sandwich if it was a member of the GOP). He could get Ohio but he gives Clinton Florida, Arizona, hell, maybe even Texas.
posted by jackbishop at 11:36 AM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


I expect the call for a new socially conservative / economically somewhat left party to get louder over the next few months.

It's been a long time coming.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:41 AM on May 21, 2016


I keep seeing this being kicked around as a possibility, but it requires a very, very specific sort of candidate, one with geographically targeted appeal and either no influence on the rest of the race or an ideologically balanced influence elsewhere which draws down both frontrunners equally.

Bloomberg might take up some votes from Democrats, but then he wouldn't get as many Republican votes as Kasich would. Not to mention he's already rejected running and policies and political stances aside, as a person he seems to be generally unpopular with party elites, despite having the same configuration of social liberal/economic conservative technocratic corporatism.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:43 AM on May 21, 2016


Wikipedia has a category nonviolent revolutions

I don't trust any categorisation of significant nonviolent revolutions which is missing "The, Prince and".
posted by howfar at 11:47 AM on May 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think the evangelical bloc is potentially in play. Not fully, not all this cycle. But the crackup between them and the libertarian elite has been happening for at least ten years now.

Yeah! I've been feeling this too. It's too bad that so much of the left treats or has treated rejection of religion as such a badge of honor (and I've definitely been guilty of this) because I think there's a powerful argument for economic reform to be made along Christian lines in the United States. Something I really regret is spending so much of the time since I lost my faith thinking of Christianity as this monolithic thing. I mean, yikes, imagine asking Martin Luther and Joseph Smith "you guys have basically the same thing going on, right?" Smart people can be really dumb sometimes. What that's cost me, among other things, is to only recently come to appreciate the Church's historic role as a social bloc that acts as a check on the State and the Market.

What I've lost faith in more recently is certainty. In the idea that the three pound lump of fat in my skull can ever contain the cosmos. What does a meat robot know about what's real? And honestly, if someone believes enough in a story or character that it changes their behavior here on planet Earth, then it's real enough for me. The multiverse is a big place. So it's not like the light of Christ has come flooding back into my life, but openness to millennia of diverse thought from that tradition sure has. I turned my back on the church with a teenager's certainty because I only focused on the creepy stuff that all my favorite bands and comedians went off on. I missed the larger point, that humans can make evil out of anything if they want to.

What that made me miss is the experience of Christians who were just as disgusted with people who used their faith as a vehicle for cruelty, but stayed Christian anyway and tried to remind that institution of the, you know, importance of staying Christ-like. That's a bravery I've only recently come to appreciate. Think about reading your Bible often enough to know how much time Jesus spends working for the poor, saying love everyone, and then seeing how much louder a signal the prosperity gospel hokum and the medieval misogyny gets. And I thought watching Man of Steel was frustrating.

What's stopping a reform minded Christian politician from taking the same tack the bigots do? Where are the left wing Bible thumpers? If American crowds love it when you quote the Bible, the case that Jesus said "help the poor" is much, much, much stronger than the case that Jesus said "hate on gay people until we can't anymore, then hate on trans people." You don't need to do any double backbends into the Nazarene's Leviticus references to point to places where Jesus said to help the poor. Imagine the last thirty, forty years of American history without the right wing monopolizing religious thought on a national level. Imagine the left wing embracing those sincere Christians who don't know where to turn now that the party they thought to be on their side has embraced a man like Trump.
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:50 AM on May 21, 2016 [17 favorites]


I'd agree that many people speak of revolution without appearing to appreciate the gravity of even just the societal upheaval that can result from disruption of an established order and established institutions, but I don't think it's much more ignorant or self-centered than for example comfortable middle class Americans supporting status quo U.S. militarism and enthusiasm for Henry Kissinger.

For sure. And just to be clear, I'm definitely of the mind that the United States needs to change its ways if it means to be a good citizen of the world or even a country at all, long term. It's just that I prefer the incremental sort of change that keeps institutions and social bonds intact. Lose those, and the revolution becomes about dealing with the resulting confusion, even if it stays non violent.
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:00 PM on May 21, 2016


It would to have be states that Clinton would otherwise win, though, or else it doesn't stop her getting an electoral college majority.

I think the unicorn GOP savior spoiler is a highly popular centrist Republican governor or Senator from a light-blue state.

Christie would actually fit the bill rather well if he had made better life choices over the last couple years and months.

Rick Snyder of Michigan would also be a pretty viable option if there weren't that little problem of poisoning all the children in his state's third-largest city seventh-largest city*.

Scott Walker, Bruce Rauner,

...

...

nope, can't think of anyone.

holy fuck, Flint's population is less than 100,000 now
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:00 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


The thing that irks me the most about Berners is their careless use of the term "revolution."

Yeah, I think I've mentioned how every time I hear the word "revolution" I flinch a little bit on the inside. For me, revolution reminds me of what happened to my grandparents in China and also the Cultural Revolution that occurred a couple of decades later. In this election season it's acted as a small reminder that as an immigrant I don't see things the way the majority of Americans do. I also wonder if other immigrant communities that have had similar situations with their home country (like Cuban or Vietnamese communities) also have similar feelings on the word.
posted by FJT at 12:02 PM on May 21, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yeah, I'm Vietnamese. Whenever someone talks about who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes, I remember that it's always the minorities and marginalized who suffer first and deepest.
posted by snickerdoodle at 12:03 PM on May 21, 2016 [22 favorites]


I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

posted by Apocryphon at 12:04 PM on May 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's too bad that so much of the left treats or has treated rejection of religion as such a badge of honor (and I've definitely been guilty of this) because I think there's a powerful argument for economic reform to be made along Christian lines in the United States.

God, YES. I was raised Lutheran, and although I have been firmly atheist since I was old enough to ask myself whether I was or not, it drives me absolutely bananas to hear other leftists talk about 'religion' as if it meant, basically, 'the asshole evangelical Baptists I grew up with.'

My parents' church took in Vietnamese refugees. They raised money to build a group home for severely mentally disabled people. They welcomed a gay couple into their congregation in the 80s. And they never made any demands on me - not even after I said I didn't want to get confirmed.

I don't believe in god. But I believe in the good that religion can do, and I can't understand why so many people can only see the bad, and write off the majority of the country because of it. Religion is an incredibly powerful force that can be harnessed for good as well as bad.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:06 PM on May 21, 2016 [18 favorites]


The Christian Left is around. We just don't feel the need to go around reading Bible verses from the well of the Senate, we'd rather quietly think about what loving God and our neighbor means in the context of our individual and communal life, and then implementing that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:07 PM on May 21, 2016 [12 favorites]


I was getting ready to come in here to ask MetaFilter to talk me down about the supposed low primary turnout rates (compared to 2008) and whether this did not bode well for GE turnout rates. I'm not sure whether this has been linked yet in any of the election threads, but I found it interesting and it also calmed me down a smidge (but I'm still kind of worried because I live in a very hyped up county in a major swing state).
posted by mostly vowels at 12:11 PM on May 21, 2016


So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

That's me!
posted by Going To Maine at 12:13 PM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


Catholic Relief Services literally saved my life. I am conflicted about the American church leadership, haven't been to mass in years, and am raising my children outside the church. But never would I presume that any group that millions of people believe in is without validity or virtue.
posted by snickerdoodle at 12:15 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


As a Taiwanese-American, I see history as a whole bloody mess of conflicts, with rotten bastards playing the part of both oppressor and the oppressed, revolutionary and counterrevolutionary. "Revolution" is just branding- and in American presidential politics, not even really original one at that. We just had the completely opposite libertarian Ron Paul rEVOLution eight years ago. And revolution does sort of imply that you'd have to scrap everything completely, that there's nothing redeemable about the current system at all.

How about Reconstruction?
posted by Apocryphon at 12:17 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Evangelical Republicans are not deeply theologically versed Christians who somehow happen to vote GOP. They are rock-ribbed anti-government homophobic misogynist conservatives who go to churches that not-accidentally read the Bible as being anti-government, homophobic, and misogynist. Time spent engaging them on a theological level is 99.9999% wasted.
posted by Etrigan at 12:19 PM on May 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


The Clinton Global Initiative is doing good work around the world. If you are attacking it for its donor list, then you might as well attack NPR, PBS, the Sierra Club, ever major musem, university, and library in America.
posted by humanfont at 12:24 PM on May 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


I highly doubt Sanders would say yes if asked whether the political revolution he's calling for is a metaphorical one...but who knows. I do know a number of the Sanders supporters I know would be dismayed if so.
posted by sallybrown at 12:27 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm trying to find Evangelical perspectives on the Current Garbage Fire. I think people are still trying to figure out where they stand for the most part....

An interview in Relevant (the major evangelical youth magazine) with Joshua DuBois, former head of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships under GWB:
"I think more and more churches, for example, are serving refugees on the front lines here in the United States and across the globe. More and more churches are working directly with the victims of human trafficking.

"When you work on this stuff—when you’re hand in hand with a trafficking victim, or when you’re in Greece or Macedonia or wherever the case may be, working with refugees—you have to take into account the role that government plays in helping those same people.

...

"So I do see that shifting, I see it changing, particularly with this next generation of believers and I think a lot more folks are engaging in public policy as a result.
A trustee at an ultra-conservative college spoke out against Trump endorsement & ended up having to resign:
"On March 1st a Washington Post article appeared in which I expressed my disagreement with Jerry Falwell Jr’s formal endorsement of Donald Trump. Jerry and a number of fellow Liberty University trustees expressed to me and to the other trustees their disapproval of my speaking publicly about the subject.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:30 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


[Weird sort of one-liner exchange removed. If y'all want to have a discussion about metaphor and political speech or whatever, okay, but may try to not shape it like a schoolyard sarcasm-off.]
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:32 PM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Clinton Global Initiative is doing good work around the world. If you are attacking it for its donor list, then you might as well attack NPR, PBS, the Sierra Club, ever major musem, university, and library in America.

Can you find an example of poor judgment by one of those organizations comparable to this crap? Because I can't think of one.
posted by sallybrown at 12:33 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's disingenuous to suggest that Sanders has been unclear that his revolution is to happen at the voting booth.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:34 PM on May 21, 2016 [8 favorites]



I highly doubt Sanders would say yes if asked whether the political revolution he's calling for is a metaphorical one...but who knows. I do know a number of the Sanders supporters I know would be dismayed if so.

I think he's pretty much explained exactly what he means: millions more people need to vote so we can elect people that will stand up against Wall Street and other special interests, restore the New Deal, truly address income inequality, and global warming, etc.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:40 PM on May 21, 2016 [11 favorites]


Restoration would also be a cool label. The New Deal Restoration. Vote True Deal, not Trump Deal.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:41 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Evangelical Republicans are not deeply theologically versed Christians who somehow happen to vote GOP. They are rock-ribbed anti-government homophobic misogynist conservatives who go to churches that not-accidentally read the Bible as being anti-government, homophobic, and misogynist.

I respectfully disagree. Many evangelicals do fit, or have fit, the stereotype you suggest. Many do not or have changed their minds. Many of the latter have already jumped ship to the Democrats, but continue to hold evangelical beliefs.

Evangelicals don't have to be the enemy on everything. They can be allies to progressives on a number of issues.

Jimmy Carter is an evangelical. Harry Reid is Mormon (and pro-life) so maybe not technically evangelical, but similarly he is a conservative Protestant.

Time spent engaging them on a theological level is 99.9999% wasted.

I think the number is closer to 50%. For every person who is simply not going to accept any argument made outside their epistemically-closed circle of interpretation, there is another person who will.

Polling indicates that evangelicals are changing their mind on homosexuality at roughly the same rate that the broader society is (albeit from a lower initial approval rate).
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:44 PM on May 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


Previous metaphorical revolutions.... So imagine these, but for good instead of evil.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:44 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hey, words have different meanings to people. And, growing up here and observing the glorification of the American Revolution, hearing people frequently quoting Thomas Jefferson's horticultural advice as Truth, general rah-rah patriotism, milleniarianism, accelerationism, and let's not forget the constant hoarding of guns, beans, and gold in bombproof shelters can make a person wonder what that word means when it's being said, too.
posted by FJT at 12:45 PM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


You know, I'm glad that so many people can speak of political revolution in a purely figurative manner. It's probably easier if half your family hadn't been wiped out when you were a child.

Bernie Sanders is a Jew who was born in 1941. I think he has an idea about the dangers of political violence.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:45 PM on May 21, 2016 [15 favorites]


Hey, words have different meanings to people. And, growing up here and observing the glorification of the American Revolution, hearing people frequently quoting Thomas Jefferson's horticultural advice, general rah-rah patriotism, milleniarianism, accelerationism, and let's not forget the constant hoarding of guns, beans, and gold in bombproof shelters can make a person wonder what that word means when it's being said, too.

I guess if one wants to seize on the least charitable possible interpretation, that's their prerogative.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:47 PM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]



Restoration would also be a cool label. The New Deal Restoration. Vote True Deal, not Trump Deal.


Um I grok your meaning but this is too revanchist-sounding for me to be comfortable hearing for the next six months.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:51 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't think Sanders wants to be Robespierre, no. But Robespierre didn't want to be Robespierre, either. I get that the man himself says this should happen at the ballot box, but he's also telling his followers that the ballot box is rigged when it doesn't go their way. And his followers have already told a political opponent that she deserved to hang in a public square, among (many, many, many) other things. I don't think mob violence in the streets is imminent (HOPE NOT, anyhow), but the cavalier use of the term reflects a certain stridency, immaturity, and naive attitude about social change that I don't find impressive or persuasive.
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:54 PM on May 21, 2016 [23 favorites]


What Sanders means is not necessarily the same as some of his supporters now believe, since he has seemingly lost control of some of the message and narrative of his own campaign.
posted by chris24 at 12:55 PM on May 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


Re: 3rd Party candidate throwing election to the House of Representatives
The closest person I can see to fulfilling this role is John Kasich, with a nice definite Ohio bloc and very limited support elsewhere. ... He could get Ohio but he gives Clinton Florida, Arizona, hell, maybe even Texas.
Kasich is my big worry, or even multiple candidates running as favorite sons -- Scott Walker in Wisconsin, as tivalasvegas noted, Kasich in Ohio. Relative moderates in swing states like Arkansas and Arizona that Dems might possibly win. Maybe even Bernie in Vermont?

There's no reason they have to even put their name on the ballot in any other state, and it would be safest not to.
posted by msalt at 1:00 PM on May 21, 2016


Um I grok your meaning but this is too revanchist-sounding for me to be comfortable hearing for the next six months.

Alright, but I still like the concept of "Reconstruct the Democratic Party", partly for political-historical irony reasons.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:01 PM on May 21, 2016


I guess if one wants to seize on the least charitable possible interpretation

Well, I'm not seizing on it. It's how I actually feel about it. I mentally put it aside when I listen to him speak. Clearly, he's not hurting for support because of his use of the word. And I'm aware I'm a minority, in a lot of ways. But, it's not a big deal.
posted by FJT at 1:02 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Could there be some kind of Power Rangers style attempt to have like 20 different favorite sons (and/or daughters) of the party running for the states in which it's possible to get on the ballot still?
posted by sallybrown at 1:02 PM on May 21, 2016




There's no reason they have to even put their name on the ballot in any other state, and it would be safest not to.

This is a terrifying potential outcome, and could be the bedrock of Republican ownership of the White House for a long time. Do the primary clown car thing, ignore it, run enough spoilers for President in enough states to bollix the EV, send the decision to the frothing dingbats in the gerrymandered House.

I'm not saying it's likely, mind you--the electoral maps are pretty clear. But not impossible, right? Someone tell me I'm wrong pls.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:07 PM on May 21, 2016


This objection to "revolution" is hardly a new thing. I have absolutely no fear that Sanders is really plotting any other kind of revolution or that he doesn't mean exactly what he said.

But as The Beatles put it:
You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world,
The word "revolution" clearly means different things to different people. For a non-trivial number of Americans today, and their families, it brings up some particularly unpleasant history that they are personally acquainted with. That's problematic for what's supposed to be a big tent movement. And when you use "revolution" as a shorthand for what boils down to "let's adopt helpful social welfare policies similar to those used in a number of European countries because they make things better for a lot of people, also less with the banks please," it makes these positions seem far more extreme than they really ought to be, and it discounts the hard word involved in getting anything done.

I think a lot of Americans, in high school US History classes, glossed over much of the Revolutionary War. What sticks is the Boston Tea Party, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, with a brief diversion into the Articles of Confederation if you were paying attention. Not so much about in the several years in between. And much as the American Revolutionary War truly sucked for the people involved and the many who died, it worked out a lot better than most of the revolutions around the world.

TL;DR: "You want a revolution? I want a revelation"
posted by zachlipton at 1:07 PM on May 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


[Guys, c'mon.]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:08 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Could there be some kind of Power Rangers style attempt to have like 20 different favorite sons (and/or daughters) of the party running for the states in which it's possible to get on the ballot still?

All states except Nebraska and Maine are winner takes all. Whoever gets the most votes gets all of the electoral votes. A majority is not required. A plurality wins the state.

Any Republican favorite son is going to split the vote with Trump, making Clinton more likely to win a plurality and all of the electoral votes. Any conservative third party candidate, in one state or all states, helps Clinton.
posted by JackFlash at 1:22 PM on May 21, 2016


Ladies and gents, I would like be the first to announce that the Cruz slate of troublemakers against Trump took 40/41 delegates for WA, prompting an apoplectic fit by the Trump Chair, who was denied a seat. Unity this, motherfuckers.
posted by corb at 1:28 PM on May 21, 2016 [52 favorites]


From the NYT article posted by chrchr:
But Mr. Trump still has no sanctioned “super PAC” able to raise unlimited sums to support his campaign. A gathering next month at Mr. Pickens’s Texas ranch that was to be sponsored by one of the pro-Trump groups, Great America PAC, has been called off because Mr. Pickens was not sure he was hosting Mr. Trump’s preferred super PAC.

I can honestly see a scenario where the GOP generally lines up behind Trump for this election, defends him from the inevitable questions about campaign financial illegalities, watches him get demolished in the general...and then happily turns on him to support investigations and prosecutions as soon as the election is over.

Even if we don't see any actionable scandals, I expect the entire party will be vicious toward Trump once he loses. They'll want to show their independent judgment and integrity as soon as it's safe again.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:28 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Rubio can win Florida and Kasich can win Ohio, while Trump holds down the red states, it might be enough to block Clinton in the E.C.
posted by chrchr at 1:29 PM on May 21, 2016


...I'm definitely of the mind that the United States needs to change its ways if it means to be a good citizen of the world or even a country at all, long term. It's just that I prefer the incremental sort of change that keeps institutions and social bonds intact. Lose those, and the revolution becomes about dealing with the resulting confusion, even if it stays non violent.

Can't incrementalism just as easily be promoted by comfortable people who don't have to suffer its consequences, as might revolution? Criticize specific things specific people have done in the current political season by all means but when we are opposed by people talking about government-maintained ethnic registries, special police patrols of neighborhoods based upon ethnicity, and mass population resettlement, and by people who are actually implementing things like criminalized miscarriage and other stuff calling the Republic of Gilead to mind, right now does not seem like a great time in history (if indeed there is any good time) to generally censure responses to societal issues that might be too "revolutionary", too disruptive of institutions and social bonds.

I don't know if you watched network news coverage of the Ferguson protests a couple of years ago but the "Oh, gasp, such violence!" reaction of most of the commentators on every fucking channel, exclusively directed at protesters, was utterly disgusting. You don't need to worry about there not being enough resistance to too-sudden rocking of the boat, it's endemic.
posted by XMLicious at 1:34 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


The responses from wealthy Republican donors on why they wouldn't support Trump had me rolling.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:37 PM on May 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


If Rubio can win Florida

Rubio lost FL to Trump by 19 points. Unless you think a bunch of Ds would vote for him rather than HRC, he's not winning FL.
posted by chris24 at 1:38 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Romney would be the best option. He could take Utah at least. There was an article about him trying this strategy a few months ago.

But it's pretty clear the GOP is rallying behind Trump now.
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:06 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


The leadership is. I got yelled at by a bully of a state senator who was telling Cruz supporters we hate the party for not backing "unity". But they can't keep this creaking ship together.
posted by corb at 2:10 PM on May 21, 2016 [12 favorites]




I'm not saying it's likely, mind you--the electoral maps are pretty clear. But not impossible, right?

The best you can say about it is that it doesn't violate any known physical laws. So it's possible in the same way that it's physically possible that Sanders could be Trump's running mate.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:12 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Unity this, motherfuckers.

Corb, coming through with the report! I want more!
posted by Salieri at 2:14 PM on May 21, 2016 [11 favorites]


Sanders is supporting Tim Canova now against DWS. Downticket this.

I do not see this ending well for Sanders, frankly. But maybe this is his way of saying he's done with being a serious candidate for office and is content with the gadfly role.
posted by dersins at 2:22 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders is supporting Tim Canova now against DWS.

Yeah, I'm a little concerned Sanders isn't aware he's being a dumbass, reassuring words from Dick Durbin notwithstanding
posted by angrycat at 2:23 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


There's no reason they have to even put their name on the ballot in any other state, and it would be safest not to.

I suppose so, but then (a) the ridiculous attempt to game the system is pretty apparent, and (b) why would the candidate agree to it? It's one thing to tell Kasich, "hey, we think you're better than Trump, go out and crush him," and another to say, "hey, run in just one state to help us with our plan to fuck up the system."
posted by jackbishop at 2:32 PM on May 21, 2016


I would like be the first to announce that the Cruz slate of troublemakers against Trump took 40/41 delegates .

So here is what I just do not get. Certain people are opposed to Trump because of his hatred and threats of violence against Hispanics. But some of these same people are happy to support Cruz, a Christian Hispanic, because he instead directs his hatred and threats of violence against American Muslims.

It just seems depressingly self-serving and astounding in lack of empathy.
posted by JackFlash at 2:41 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


There's no reason they have to even put their name on the ballot in any other state, and it would be safest not to.

This is some very strange conspiracy talk: a number of republicans will wage secret, organized, third-party candidacies in swing statesin order to screw over everyone and throw it to the house of representatives, who will then coalesce on a single, unity candidate somehow picked from the lot of them.

Is it possible that this weird thing that has never, ever happened before will happen just this once in a presidential campaign? Sure, vaguely. Is it something to plan on happening and get worked up over? No, because it is crazy.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:41 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Dumbass to primary DWS who voted to fast-track TPP? And who originally limited Democrats to six debates while Republican debates commanded the airwaves for months? And she co-sponsored a bill to strip powers from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? I don't get what's dumbass about supporting a challenger to DWS.
posted by scrowdid at 2:48 PM on May 21, 2016 [17 favorites]


So here is what I just do not get. Certain people are opposed to Trump because of his hatred and threats of violence against Hispanics. But some of these same people are happy to support Cruz, a Christian Hispanic, because he instead directs his hatred and threats of violence against American Muslims.

It just seems depressingly self-serving and astounding in lack of empathy.


This is what identity politics looks like when it's not coming from a broader sense of universalist principles. Remember, we've been here before. Many immigrant groups went through a period of being the hated Other ("no dogs or Irish allowed"), before managing to force their way into acceptance, often after tremendous effort, just to turn around and do their best to slam the door shut in the face of whoever - Jewish Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic immigrants - was next in line. It is not unusual, and yet so many people seem to be surprised by it, time and again.

A lot of people aren't really aiming for equality, per se - they don't want the line between Us and Them to go away, they just want to get themselves and their families comfortably on the right side of the line.
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:49 PM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


So VERY interestingly - one of the resolutions proposed was one condemning despicable actions and behavior of Donald Trump. The official Party put it in the "do not pass" recommend, which means it's not included in the information packet, and just gets talked about. The Party has put it last before 104 others and I think is trying to run out the clock on it. There's a LOT of talk about "unity" and they also played some BS Trumpaganda.
posted by corb at 2:52 PM on May 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


Oh also - one of the delegates chosen is a Muslim who got cheers from the floor. It might be the locale, but there's a lot of pushback in WA at least against ethnic bigotry.
posted by corb at 2:55 PM on May 21, 2016 [21 favorites]


GET 'EM, corb!
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:57 PM on May 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


This is some very strange conspiracy talk: a number of republicans will wage secret, organized, third-party candidacies in swing statesin order to screw over everyone and throw it to the house of representatives, who will then coalesce on a single, unity candidate somehow picked from the lot of them.

I don't quite see where you're coming from -- secret? screw over everyone? The House of Representatives scenario, and third party candidacies, are being openly discussed by national Republicans who -- with good reason -- see Trump as a disaster and think they are working to save the country from disaster, not screw people over. The fact that they retain massive personal power is also a side benefit.

The targets would need to be very carefully chosen -- swing states with a popular and reasonable looking popular son (or daughter). I haven't done the math but I 'm guessing that Ohio alone could hold Hillary below 270 depending how other states go.

The other advantage of targeting one or two states is that the entire national Republican establishment could focus their money and campaign staff talent there, overwhelming Hillary and Donald's resources.
posted by msalt at 3:03 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


corb, this is an excellent demonstration of what I think will be Trump's greatest weakness in November: he's demonstrated something close to outright contempt for the ground game, and with a little effort can be out-organized.
posted by dersins at 3:04 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


when we are opposed by people talking about government-maintained ethnic registries, special police patrols of neighborhoods based upon ethnicity, and mass population resettlement, and by people who are actually implementing things like criminalized miscarriage and other stuff calling the Republic of Gilead to mind, right now does not seem like a great time in history (if indeed there is any good time) to generally censure responses to societal issues that might be too "revolutionary", too disruptive of institutions and social bonds.

OK, so, your argument falls flat given that the people arguing "revolution" are also proponents of voting strategies that are most likely to benefit the very candidate arguing for aforementioned horrors.

Corb, I am all excited for these developments!
posted by schroedinger at 3:07 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'd like to think that voters in the states in these hypothetical scenarios would push back hard against being so explicitly gamified.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:07 PM on May 21, 2016


It's also worth noting that at the point people saw which way the wind was blowing and that the Cruz campaign was running the only anti-Trump show in town, a lot of people started withdrawing and endorsing the Cruz slate even if they were wearing Kasich stickers or what have you. The Trumpsters are losing their shit. But I talked to a reasonable Trumpster, and he said not only did they have no slate, they didn't even contact each other to make sure they were coming. They figured they had it in the bag so why show?
posted by corb at 3:09 PM on May 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


I do not see this ending well for Sanders, frankly.

They were already making noises about running someone against him in the Senate. Good luck with that.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:11 PM on May 21, 2016


They were already making noises about running someone against him in the Senate. Good luck with that.

Considering that the DNC routinely clears the deck for him (and has done so since 1990, pushing aside their own candidate who was just as if not more leftward that year)? You might be surprised at what happens when they say "no, we're not giving you tacit support this year."
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:15 PM on May 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sanders is supporting Tim Canova now against DWS.

Guess he was trying not to rock the boat on that one; pretty disappointing since I've been plugged into Canova's mailing list and he's consistently identified his campaign with Sanders' movement.
posted by indubitable at 3:15 PM on May 21, 2016


To be clear: it is disappointing that Sanders did not endorse Canova earlier.
posted by indubitable at 3:17 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


They were already making noises about running someone against him in the Senate. Good luck with that.

Sanders has been caucusing with the Dems, and they've been actively supporting him over people from their own party and endorsing him for committee positions in return. He owes them quite a bit. If they decide to withdraw that support then I would not be surprised if he decides to retire from the Senate in 2018--whether on his own or due to the strength of the candidate run against him.
posted by schroedinger at 3:28 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Uranium One claims??! Long time Canadian donors to CGI sold assets to a Russian company. The deal went through ordinary approval processes and there is no evidence in Clinton's emails or the article you linked that she or CGI was even aware of the deal. A deal that the donors didn't disclose to CGI when they made the donation, even though they were supposed to.

The only reason we know about it is a right wing hack at the Hoover Foundation had a book deal that claimed to expose the corruption at CGI and this was his most shocking revelation. A revelation backed by nothing. The right wing has spend hundreds of millions investigating Hillary for 24 years. They had an independent prosecutor looking at her for 10 years. The GOP Congress has multiple Benghazi and email investigations. No one has been more investigated and had the prosecutors come up with nothing.
posted by humanfont at 3:29 PM on May 21, 2016 [14 favorites]


To be clear: His position as "Independent" has effectively been a fig leaf. Until now he's been pretty loyal to the DNC, so they haven't really cared he isn't officially a Democrat.
posted by schroedinger at 3:29 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


This article is a good demonstration of prior DNC support for Sanders. In 2006, the state DNC supported him over an actual member of the party:
Carleton said the Democrats' early intervention in the race is crucial in part because Vermont has among the most liberal ballot-access laws in the nation. Candidates for statewide office need just 500 signatures of registered voters to appear on a primary ballot. Because the state has no system of formal party registration, Democrats and the GOP alike must sometimes contend with "opportunistic party-jumping" from politicians, Carleton said.
And in 2012, the DNC didn't run anyone against him.
posted by schroedinger at 3:36 PM on May 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


In 2006, the state DNC supported him over the actual DNC candidate:

Ah, I wondered if his being a Dem now and having to be primaryed was a vulnerability, but it appears not (unless he's pissed off the state folks in the past ten years.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:42 PM on May 21, 2016


What's left for the D primary? Puerto Rico, California, New Jersey, and D.C.? Clinton could very possibly sweep all four convincingly which would lend itself to a stupid "CLINTON HAS THE BIG MO AND CLOSES IT OUT STRONG" narrative in the media when, as with the entire cycle, it's all about demographics. Still; better to finish strong on a dumb narrative than the reverse.

At least this painfully extended part of the election season will be over in two weeks.
posted by Justinian at 3:43 PM on May 21, 2016


Thanks corb. Interesting to me how the Cruz people keep on going. But these delegates will still be bound by the May 24 primary results so, at least on the surface, it's not going to gain Cruz much. Here's the Seattle Times story on the WA Republican Convention for anyone interested.

Story included this on the Muslim delegate (assuming this is the one you were talking about, corb):

Hossein Khorram is a Republican delegate from Clyde Hill. He’s an Iranian American and Muslim, and was a supporter of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. He’ll now support Trump as the presumptive GOP nominee, notwithstanding Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S. “I don’t really blame him,” he said. “He’s not a racist. He’s not.”

Khorram said Republicans “need to help” Trump to ensure he understands the principles of the party. “He needs a little bit of guidance,” he said.

posted by honestcoyote at 3:44 PM on May 21, 2016


One interesting thing I'm hearing is that being a "faithless delegate" and voting against the primary results is not criminal but rather a $1000 fine that does not invalidate the vote. Another thing I'm hearing is that delegates may be able to abstain, either technically or physically, if bound to a delegate they do not actually support. Not sure how accurate this is yet though.

That Seattle Times article is missing a LOT of context. They filed the story before any floor voting had taken place - just the gladhanding before the camps firmed up. The report from the credentialing committee hadn't even been accepted yet.
posted by corb at 3:51 PM on May 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


Speaking of Kasich doing a third-party run in Ohio: he can't due to the state's sore loser law.

I'm thinking the ultimate #nevertrump ploy is going to involve backing the Libertarians. With William Weld (former MA gov.) joining the ticket, it will be two former GOP governors. Neither of them are particularly popular in GOP circles, but having some previous mainstream success should make it easier to get endorsements / money from GOP-ers who would never normally support a third-party.
posted by honestcoyote at 3:53 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


And in 2012, the DNC didn't run anyone against him.

Because they let him run in the 2012 Democratic senatorial primary, which he won and then declined to run as a Democrat, forestalling any other Democratic candidate.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:07 PM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


In other election news, our old friend James O'Keefe is trying to insert himself into electoral politics, and screwing up in a big way.
posted by TedW at 4:14 PM on May 21, 2016


Today The Comic Strip of the Day broke format to look at the editorial cartoons of 8 years ago on another candidate who didn't give up when it was obvious.

And a thought about the "Hillary stayed on to get the consolation prize of the Secretary of State job": Joe Biden quit his campaign much earlier, and HE got the V.P. job...
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:21 PM on May 21, 2016


being a "faithless delegate" and voting against the primary results is not criminal but rather a $1000 fine that does not invalidate the vote.

VERY INTERESTING
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:23 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


What's left for the D primary? Puerto Rico, California, New Jersey, and D.C.?

The remaining Democratic primaries and caucases are:

June 4, Virgin Islands
June 5, Puerto Rico
June 7, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
June 14, Washington, DC

Open caucus: North Dakota
Closed caucus: Virgin Islands
Open primaries: Puerto Rico, Montana
Semi-closed primaries: California, New Jersey, South Dakota
Closed primaries: New Mexico, Washington, DC

posted by kirkaracha at 4:31 PM on May 21, 2016




538.com has a timeline and a proportional map with states sized by available delegates.

The timeline also charts the pace of winning delegates each candidate needs to maintain to win the nomination. Note that since around March 26 Clinton has been gaining about 107-108% of the delegates she needs and has consistently overperformed since the beginning of the race. Sanders has been gaining about 92-93% of the delegates he needs and has consistently underperformed.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:32 PM on May 21, 2016



Dumbass to primary DWS who voted to fast-track TPP? And who originally limited Democrats to six debates while Republican debates commanded the airwaves for months? And she co-sponsored a bill to strip powers from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? I don't get what's dumbass about supporting a challenger to DWS.


Nope. Dumbass for Sanders to express his support for the challenger only after the Nevada fiasco. As is said in the article, Sanders didn't do anything to support the challenger until then.
posted by angrycat at 4:36 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


Dumbass for Sanders to express his support for the challenger only after the Nevada fiasco. As is said in the article, Sanders didn't do anything to support the challenger until then.

FFS, he had enough to deal with DWS' Clinton Campaign BS.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:40 PM on May 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Sanders sub has been throwing some money at Canova for awhile now.
posted by futz at 4:45 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


One other thing I'm learning is why parties have such jacked up platforms. Everyone wants to go home, and it's easier to let bullshit slide when to debate it means you can't go hom, especially if you're using your energy on whipping votes to, say, stop Trump. I know I'm not fighting stuff I disagree with that I planned to, because I'm exhausted. I suspect this is a shared feeling.
posted by corb at 4:55 PM on May 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


As mentioned above, Sanders was probably trying not to rock the boat with Canova over DWS. This recent "endorsement" is somewhat soft itself: when Sanders is asked point-blank if he supports Wasserman Schultz, he merely says "Of course I support her opponent" without even mentioning his name.
posted by scrowdid at 4:55 PM on May 21, 2016


If the Seattle Times told me it was raining here in Seattle and I looked outside and saw rain, I'd still wonder what their angle was. Or if they just got lucky.I would never, ever trust the Times' political reporting.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:00 PM on May 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


Because they let him run in the 2012 Democratic senatorial primary, which he won and then declined to run as a Democrat, forestalling any other Democratic candidate.

Yeah. The point being--the bulk of Sanders's Congressional career (back to the House, as well) has been built on the goodwill of the Democrats (and he's been all too happy to bank on). I'm going to guess his 2018 prospects will be based on how he's able to turn things around by November.
posted by schroedinger at 5:03 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm going to guess his 2018 prospects will be based on how he's able to turn things around by November

OK. Thought that would be the DNC Wheelhouse.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:17 PM on May 21, 2016


I'm talking about his own rhetoric and the rhetoric of his supporters. Do you think the DNC is going to support a candidate who paints them and their nominee as corrupt and craven?
posted by schroedinger at 5:23 PM on May 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


What a great way to prove they aren't corrupt and craven, by showing the people of Vermont that their public office holder serves at the pleasure of the DNC, a "private organization" which may use said public office as an instrument to punish insubordinate primary voters in the rest of the country.
posted by XMLicious at 6:42 PM on May 21, 2016 [15 favorites]


If the people of Vermont choose to vote for Sanders, they can still do so. The guy runs as an Independent. The DNC supplying their own candidate does not prevent him from running.

I am surprised anybody is crying for the fainting salts at the suggestion a political party may put up their own candidate when the Independent candidate spends his presidential campaign decrying them. Sanders has been making political deals with the DNC for three decades. It does no good to act like he's a truth-telling maverick all of a sudden because the guy decided to burn his political alliances for his own devices.
posted by schroedinger at 7:02 PM on May 21, 2016 [26 favorites]


Exactly how is it corrupt to present your own candidate when the alternative made it clear he questions your very legitimacy as a party? Like, if an ally says "I'm not your ally" any more, then yeah, you're going to go find new allies.
posted by schroedinger at 7:05 PM on May 21, 2016 [17 favorites]


Does everyone here want the Tea Party Movement?
Because this is how you get the Tea Party movement.
posted by FJT at 7:07 PM on May 21, 2016 [9 favorites]


Well, a Left-Wing Tea Party influencing (but not totally taking over) the Democratic Party is not, in and of itself a bad thing. But remember the circumstances creating the Right-Wing Tea Party... it all started after (and though they deny it, in response to) a Black Man being elected President. Sadly (and frighteningly), the one thing that would most likely trigger a Left-Wing Tea Party would be an Orange Man (Trump) being elected President.

It would need a different name, though. The Venti Latte Party?
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:15 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


The kombucha party
posted by museum of fire ants at 7:16 PM on May 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


For those who enjoy schadenfreude, the State Trump Chairman got blocked out of even alternate or elector status. So sad!
posted by corb at 7:18 PM on May 21, 2016 [24 favorites]


which makes me think of the Worst Possible Political Alliance Ever: The Green Tea Party.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:18 PM on May 21, 2016 [13 favorites]


I was going to say, I have already heard some of the more extreme left factions referred to as the Green Tea Party.

For those who enjoy schadenfreude, the State Trump Chairman got blocked out of even alternate or elector status. So sad!

HA! Rules-lawyering for good!
posted by schroedinger at 7:20 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, the "Tea Party" is taken from a pre-US revolutionary protest. If you want to evoke that era, but still have it drink themed, then you can probably call it the "Whiskey Rebellion" (which is a post-Revolutionary War event, but it's still around that time at least).

But the rebels did lose, so that might not be a good name.
posted by FJT at 7:24 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


The shut-out of Trump delegates and alternates also has at least some minor real world consequences. These are usually rewards for campaigning, as are coveted guest passes. By shutting Trump campaign staff out of all of those slots, we limit the amount of carrots they can dangle over the heads of loyalists. It won't affect true believers, but it might affect their GOTV effort.
posted by corb at 7:25 PM on May 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


By the way, in other election news, during the Oregon primary this week, voters in Harney County rejected almost every candidate who had supported the Malheur occupation. Harney had the highest turnout of any county in the state.
posted by dersins at 7:28 PM on May 21, 2016 [27 favorites]




Wow, that Bruenig guy sounds like a gigantic asshole.
posted by dersins at 8:06 PM on May 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


"The problem with this narrative is that it is alternately wholly skewed against or completely at odds to what independent observers documented about the process. Basically everyone who is not a Bernie supporter has presented a narrative very different from this one. Not to mention some of the facts in aforementioned narrative leave out large chunks of information--for example, when discussing the dismissed Sanders delegates it neglects to mention that 56 of those delegates were not even physically present, and that the credential committee approving delegate credentials was 50% Sanders supporters. When it talks about the approval of "temporary rules", it does not mention that the approval of "temporary rules" is not even the approval of rules--it's simply an acknowledgement that a set of "temporary rules" has been presented. The equivalent of saying "I received your letter" after someone sends you a letter. "

God, and that it's full of complaints about parliamentary procedure without HAVING ANY FUCKING IDEA HOW PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE WORKS.

For example, one of the charges is that the chair allowed a motion to adjourn while there was a motion to recount still on the table. The convention rules (.doc, and which don't include anything untoward, and rather grant the chair customary powers for a parliamentary debate, despite the SEKRIT MEETING complaints) states that their parliamentary procedure will be governed by Robert's Rules. A motion to adjourn takes precedence over all other motions that can be offered except one — a motion to set a time of adjournment.

Many of the other complaints are along the same lines — the Common Dreams chuckleheads seem to have only seen voice votes on MTV Spring Break, and pretend that petition signatures are an acceptable method for overturning parliamentary decisions by the chair. It's like, I understand losing because you were outmaneuvered in parliamentary procedure is frustrating because it has no real relationship with how right your point of view is. On the other hand, if you're going into a situation that is governed by parliamentary procedure and don't bother to learn how it works, that's your fault. That's no more "stealing the election" than it is to take all the properties of the player you bankrupt in Monopoly — the rules may be unfair, but they're the fucking rules that you're playing by, and not knowing the rules that you're playing by is fucking incompetent when it comes to a campaign for president.

It's not like there aren't Model UNers all over this great country who are happily Sanders supporters — hopefully, some of his activists can get one to show up to the next caucuses.
posted by klangklangston at 8:34 PM on May 21, 2016 [20 favorites]


Well, the "Tea Party" is taken from a pre-US revolutionary protest. If you want to evoke that era, but still have it drink themed, then you can probably call it the "Whiskey Rebellion" (which is a post-Revolutionary War event, but it's still around that time at least).

Yeah, I've suggested it, along with Committees of Correspondence. Or for a more militant sound, the Continental Army.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:40 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


I go on to Twitter, and I see Rania Khalek (pro-Bruenig) of the Electronic Intifada feuding with Imani Grady (pro-Jeong) of Rewire. This is one of those circular firing squad I've heard so much about, isn't it? What perfect timing for Hollywood to be putting forth movies about superhero internecine warfare.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:49 PM on May 21, 2016


Klangklangston is right again. Honestly the Trump and Sanders supporters both act like parliamentary procedure was initiated just for these conventions rather than having existed unchanged for quite some time.
posted by corb at 8:53 PM on May 21, 2016 [9 favorites]


I know it's weird to think about, but I want to move the country toward Democratic Socialism and I don't want to destroy the Democratic Party. I'll give some people a moment to gather their blown mind.

Wow, that Bruenig guy sounds like a gigantic asshole.

I love his bit about it's all really about the young vs the olds. Did the young people invent Democratic Socialism too? How the fuck did Sanders get on board so quick?
posted by bongo_x at 8:56 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


(Indeed, one side consequence of Bruenig's departure from Demos has been the revival of a harassment campaign against his wife, Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig, by followers of Roosh V related to a spat between the two of them a year ago.)

Men!
posted by Going To Maine at 8:57 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bruenighazi: How a feisty Bernie blogger's firing explains Democratic politics in 2016
But to many, it reflects something larger, the latest in a series of efforts by the forces of centrist liberalism to stifle more left-wing voices in order to serve the interests of capitalism.
If all you have is a hammer and sickle, everything looks like a series of efforts by the forces of centrist liberalism to stifle more left-wing voices in order to serve the interests of capitalism.

As an aside, I am very supportive of -ghazi replacing -gate as the suffix of scandal.
posted by figurant at 9:01 PM on May 21, 2016 [13 favorites]


I don’t wanna see the American people voting for the lesser of two evils.

Well, it's a good thing for Sanders that there are so many people out there who enthusiastically support Clinton because they think she's the best candidate!

And honestly, that's pretty insulting to the millions who've voted so far in the primary. If you're saying that Clinton is so disliked that she's seen merely as the "lesser of two evils" compared to Trump, what does that say about the majority of voters who honestly preferred her as a Democratic candidate? That they're stupid? Duped? That they willingly abandoned their principles and voted for "evil"?

I keep hearing that Sanders will support Clinton against Trump. I don't think this is how it works.
posted by Salieri at 9:04 PM on May 21, 2016 [20 favorites]


As an aside, I am very supportive of -ghazi replacing -gate as the suffix of scandal.

I feel like there's a place for both, though. -gate when the scandal is both real and significant, and -ghazi when it's full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
posted by dersins at 9:07 PM on May 21, 2016 [13 favorites]


And honestly, that's pretty insulting to the millions who've voted so far in the primary. If you're saying that Clinton is so disliked that she's seen merely as the "lesser of two evils" compared to Trump, what does that say about the majority of voters who honestly preferred her as a Democratic candidate?

More to the point, if people only vote for Clinton because she is the "lesser of two evils," wouldn't the fact that more have voted for her than for Sanders make him the greater evil?
posted by dersins at 9:11 PM on May 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


"I don’t wanna see the American people voting for the lesser of two evils."

I'm starting to feel pretty stupid for expecting better of this guy.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:24 PM on May 21, 2016 [15 favorites]


"I don’t wanna see the American people voting for the lesser of two evils."

After 40 years of voting regularly, primaries and general elections, I've had so many of the candidates I've supported in past primaries NOT make it to the general, "lesser of two evils" has become the way I frequently vote - in fact, the "evil" part of the cliché doesn't even register for me anymore. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that's how Bernie thinks about it. Not that it's not a mistake. It's just a cliché that needs replacing... I was thinking "the greater of two lessers"...

But then, neither Hillary nor Bernie was my "first choice"; in fact Hillary wasn't my first choice among the 'insiders' and Bernie not my first choice among 'outsiders'... but my top choices in both categories weren't even running this time around.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:47 PM on May 21, 2016


The Republican party has been trying to prove Hillary Clinton is a werewolf for my entire adult life. They have failed. Utterly. The Sanders campaign has similarly failed.

She's not a "lesser evil." She's imperfect. She's flawed. "Evil" is another category entirely. This election is melodramatic enough as it is without words like "evil" getting casually thrown around.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:49 PM on May 21, 2016 [30 favorites]


And honestly, that's pretty insulting to the millions who've voted so far in the primary.

It's unfortunate if it feels insulting. I can't speak for everyone who uses the term "lesser of two evils," but I'd challenge this claim of misogyny. Nader voters used the same term in 2000, remember?

The snark in me wants to say insults hurt a lot less than bombs, i.e. one of the my issues with Clinton above all was her support for the Iraq war, when she fell in line with the establishment, while millions of us were in the streets ignored. And now we're still reeling from the effects of Iraq - primarily through this perceived conflict between the West and Islam that is now unified and global and has destabilized and destroyed the lives of a part of the world in which I spend half my life. (so yea, it's personal).

I don't think she has a black heart or anything. Overall I would say not to focus too much on the "evil" as it relates to the person Hillary Clinton, because were really talking policies here, not individuals.
posted by iamck at 9:50 PM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah. We have an evil candidate in the race. And assuming I can come up with the fees for this stupid secret-service-protected hotel, I'll be fighting him in Cleveland. Don't rule #nevertrump out yet.
posted by corb at 9:52 PM on May 21, 2016 [18 favorites]


Eh, I think getting carried away about "the lesser of two evils", when the scare quotes are apparent in tone of voice and body language, is just as counterproductive as using the phrase in the first place. Escalating conflict is very rarely the way to make it go away. No-one can win this fight.
posted by howfar at 9:57 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Nader voters used the same term in 2000, remember?

It's funny you say that, because if Nader voters had voted for the "lesser of two evils", we would not have ended up with the Iraq War--which Sanders may not have voted for, but he certainly voted to fund.
posted by schroedinger at 9:59 PM on May 21, 2016 [15 favorites]


We've been through that discussion before. Al Gore's failure to garner more votes, as well as Jeb Bush's voter suppression in FL, heck even the Supreme Court itself, were just as responsible as Nader was, if not more.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:02 PM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]






We've been through that discussion before. Al Gore's failure to garner more votes, as well as Jeb Bush's voter suppression in FL, heck even the Supreme Court itself, were just as responsible as Nader was, if not more.

Maybe we have, but you stating your beliefs about that doesn't mean the rest of us agree.
posted by schroedinger at 10:17 PM on May 21, 2016 [14 favorites]


And in 2012, the DNC didn't run anyone against him.

Because they let him run in the 2012 Democratic senatorial primary, which he won and then declined to run as a Democrat, forestalling any other Democratic candidate.


Well, their rules let people nominate him. VT dems unaffiliated with Sanders did the minimal legwork to get him on the primary ballot and voters picked him, despite his statement up front that he'd decline it if nominated.

I'm sure someone could work up a good frothing conspiracy around this, but it seems far more likely to me that this just reflects that the true believers in the VT democratic party who vote in the primaries want a candidate like Sanders. That doesn't seem all that far-fetched considering how many people nationwide clearly want the party to look more like his beliefs.

I mean, I'm sure Sanders wasn't crying over a lack of competition. But a sufficiently dedicated candidate could have run for that slot as an independent themselves. Maybe now the VT party will be motivated to change their rules so this can't happen again, but clearly the people there know what they're getting and like it. The suggestion that the party as an organization is throwing him some sort of bone, rather than the VT dem voters, is silly.
posted by phearlez at 10:23 PM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


She's not a "lesser evil." She's imperfect. She's flawed. "Evil" is another category entirely. This election is melodramatic enough as it is without words like "evil" getting casually thrown around.

Voting for the Iraq war was evil.

Maybe we have, but you stating your beliefs about that doesn't mean the rest of us agree.

It's not a question of beliefs. Democrats voted for Bush more than for Nader in Florida. Gore's campaign failed to do it's job.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:25 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's not a question of beliefs. Democrats voted for Bush more than for Nader in Florida. Gore's campaign failed to do it's job.

Joint Causality Does Not Allow Any Individual Willful Cause to Escape Responsibility
Obviously, election outcomes are the product of the complex interaction of many variables. Prominent Florida officials and Supreme Court justices and Ralph Nader all needed each other to achieve their common goal of putting George W. Bush in the White House. Under some other plausible scenarios, they would not have succeeded, and in others the help Nader’s campaign provided to Bush would have been superfluous. In terms of whether Nader deserves responsibility for the predictable potential consequences of his actions, this is all neither here nor there. Things could have worked out so that Nader failed to throw the election to Bush. Could have, but didn’t. And even if he had failed, it would have remained worth pointing out that as a tactic for pushing the Democrats to the left spoiler campaigns are all downside with no upside.

A variant form of apologism is to concede that Nader bears his share of responsibility, but to whine about how he’s been singled out. Why attack poor Ralph? Antonin Scalia and the Bush brothers are the real enemy! Well, first of all, most Nader critics are plenty critical of the Republican bad actors involved (certainly I have been.) The media has generally not gotten enough criticism (although I’ve been beating that drum forever.) But, especially going forward, there’s a rather obvious reason to spend time criticizing Nader for supporting Republicans instead of criticizing Jeb Bush for supporting George W. Bush. It is obviously futile to try to persuade Republicans not to advance Republican interests. It is, however, worth trying to persuade people who don’t support Republican interests not to support Republican interests.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:44 PM on May 21, 2016 [11 favorites]


Voting for the Iraq war was evil.

If voting for the war is evil, I assume that voting to pay for the war to continue must also be evil.

Seems we're back to deciding which is the lesser of two evils after all.
posted by dersins at 11:03 PM on May 21, 2016 [16 favorites]


I'll vote for HRC in the general, because I don't have faith that my generally blue state won't swing Trump. I didn't vote for Kerry. I wouldn't happily vote for Uncle Joe, either. Because the Iraq War is my single issue. I am 100% on your side, though. I assume that any blue candidate wants to protect women's healthcare rights. That's a non-issue for me. But I have never felt so alienated from my party. I am not a BernieBro. I'm not a Bernie or buster. I've been stumping for the Dems since elementary school (literally, because this was part of my G&T program). I am a feminist. I care deeply about politics and always have, for as long as I can remember. I am not on Reddit. I think there is a loud minority of Sanders supporters that are out of hand. And I am so over being lumped in with them. I am not a bad person because I care about policy, and find HRC not to my liking. That doesn't make me sexist. But this infighting, this narrative going on, makes me want to disaffiliate after the general. I'm a true blue believer, and the party needs people like me, the people who feel silenced. Throw us an olive branch. Stop treating us like we're the enemy, because of the actions of the zealots. I do not want a President Trump, no way, no how. I don't want to see it burn. I do want to feel like I matter, that I'm in it with you, and I'm not finding things very welcoming.
posted by Ruki at 11:04 PM on May 21, 2016 [24 favorites]


[A couple of comments deleted. Please drop the personal stuff, please drop the "what you do with your vote" or "how you personally feel" arguing. This is a place to discuss news about the election, not to argue individually about people's own choices. And Generally, everyone, if we can't muster the will to have a thread about the election that isn't swamped with a) Bernie/Hillary supporters suck, b) hyperbolic "Bernie/Hillary is EVIL" ranting, or c) another fun round of "let's relitigate Nader for the umpteenbillionth round, because this time I'm totally going to change the other guy's mind" maybe there really is nothing left to discuss, and we don't need to have more election threads, because this is beyond tedious. ]
posted by taz (staff) at 11:21 PM on May 21, 2016 [22 favorites]


I assume that any blue candidate wants to protect women's healthcare rights.
I don't, because that's not a safe assumption where I live. In particular, there's a candidate in our Democratic Senate primary who has a long history of anti-choice activism, including voting for a bill that would impose a waiting period (and that's particularly bad in a state where many people have to travel long distances for medical care) and expressing support for defunding Planned Parenthood. He's recently decided that he's pro-choice, although he's still extremely cagey about it. What he says is that he supports Roe v Wade. What he doesn't say is that he still supports every restriction that the courts find to be allowed by Roe. For instance, he wants a ban on late-term abortion, with exceptions only for the health of the mother.

This guy came out for Bernie early and hard, and he is currently Bernie or Bust. He is fundraising heavily among national Bernie supporters. He doesn't mention his opposition to abortion or other socially conservative positions, and he berates people who bring those things up. It's divisive; it's pro-Hillary; it's a distraction from the real issues. And I guess I just fundamentally disagree that my bodily safety is a divisive secondary issue.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:20 AM on May 22, 2016 [18 favorites]


Russ Feingold(D) looks like he has a decent shot at displacing Ron Johnson(R) in Wisconsin. I was very sad to lose Feingold in the Senate so this race has me excited.

Illinois might also be a gain as it seems to be leaning consistently toward Tammy Duckworth(D). She was a solid voice in the house and would be a good addition to the Senate. Mark Kirk(R) hasn't been the worst, he can be reasoned with, but I don't see much conviction (he did miss some time due to illness and he was a junior senator so it isn't totally his fault) but even when he is there, he is mainly decoration.

Chris Van Hollen(D) has been a standout in the house so him to replace Barbara Mikulski(D) is a decent move and the Maryland seat seems fairly assured. It would have been nice to have a woman in the seat but hopefully gains elsewhere will balance things a bit more.

The New Hampshire race is also one to watch. Kelly Ayotte(R) is a mixed bag. At times I have liked her and at others been flabbergasted by her views. I'm not sure how popular the current Governor Maggie Hassan(D) is and don't know much about her (or state demographics) but I don't see a lot of fight or conviction. So while polling is close and this would be a nice seat to switch ... I worry.

Chuck Schumer(D) of New York ... I wanted him to retire ... unfortunately he is running against a wingnut in a pretty safe race. So 6 more years of his smug trying to score political points as if they are real.

Arizona ... Ann Kirkpatrick(D) ran a 2010 McCain ad (youtube 1min) against John McCain(R). His own party challenger Kelli Ward(R) is using the same ad (vimeo 30sec) but with a different twist.

All 2016 political ads (an internet archive project)
posted by phoque at 5:25 AM on May 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Chuck Schumer(D) of New York ... I wanted him to retire ... unfortunately he is running against a wingnut in a pretty safe race. So 6 more years of his smug trying to score political points as if they are real.

Schumer's in line to replace Harry Reid as the Senate Democratic leader when the latter retires in January, so he's definitely not going anywhere voluntarily.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:44 AM on May 22, 2016




The Demographic split on that ABC poll seems odd, especially when you dig down into the detailed information and there was at least 22% support for Mittens.

Methinks they are a doing a poor job of screening the "independent" voters.
posted by vuron at 7:00 AM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Methinks they are a doing a poor job of screening the "independent" voters.

Does it count as a poor job if they're doing it on purpose?

Despite 538's whiffing it on the Trumpmentum thing, I think they will be more necessary than ever in the general election, because pretty much every Trump v Clinton poll that's come out recently has had some kind of massive skew in the demographic sampling, all of which favor Republicans.

I realize that this is exactly what many Republicans claimed was happening last time, and I don't want to take this too far into "ignoring objective reality" territory... but I just plain do not trust any poll these days until someone with far more knowledge of stats and demographics than me takes a hard look at the sample and checks it for representativeness. Because a close race is good for business, and I have zero faith in the willingness of the news media to report on the facts as they actually exist anymore.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:13 AM on May 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


3 of the last 4 national polls have Trump winning. Let's not unskew the polls and talk about how they are irrelevant. Let's not spin theories to explain why Clinton is really still winning. Let's look at the data and figure out why Trump is winning. Right now, it looks like he's pulled even or taken the lead because he's polling better than expected among young voters and white voters. Let's start with the first one: why are young voters splitting their vote between Trump and Clinton? Many of these are enthusiastic Sanders supporters who have heard nothing but horrible things about Clinton for the past 8 months. Hopefully Sanders can change his rhetoric and fully endorse Clinton at the convention (like Clinton did for Obama). Clinton is going to need those young people to vote for her. Now what about the second one: why is Clinton doing worse among white voters than Obama? Is the "realignment" of parties that folks have been talking about really going to come to this -- a white party and a non-white party? If white voters cast their votes +70% for Trump, then I don't see how you don't draw that distinction. It's the acceleration of the segregation of parties as markers of identity instead of ideas.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:25 AM on May 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


And in contrast to the ABC/WaPo poll above which has some freaking out, the new NBC/WSJ poll has Clinton up 46-43.
posted by chris24 at 7:28 AM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wow, that Gopnik piece.

To say “Well, he would not really have the power to accomplish that” is to misunderstand the nature of thin-skinned authoritarians in power. They do not arrive in office and discover, as constitutionalists do, that their capabilities are more limited than they imagined. They arrive, and then make their power as large as they can.
posted by zarq at 7:29 AM on May 22, 2016 [9 favorites]


National polls are mostly irrelevant anyway, since we don't vote that way. but both ABC and NBC having both candidates in a tie is not great.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:29 AM on May 22, 2016


Here is a site you can bookmark to see what the state of the race is in terms of polling. Yes, Clinton is up +3 in the new NBC/WSJ poll. That's a drop from her +11 lead in the same poll last month. Every poll that has been released in the last 2 weeks has shown the same thing -- Trump gaining on Clinton by roughly 6-9 points. The data seems to be pointing to two factors: Republicans coalescing around Trump, and more Sanders supporters claiming they won't vote for Clinton. Those two factors combined are driving the current trend.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:33 AM on May 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


And assuming I can come up with the fees for this stupid secret-service-protected hotel, I'll be fighting him in Cleveland. Don't rule #nevertrump out yet.

I can't get enough of these kinds of first-hand accounts of the nitty-gritty of the political process. Not that I want you to go in debt for it, corb, but I hope you're able to go and let us know what it's like.

I was curious about how it went at your state convention. How big was the #nevertrump movement in terms of organization? Did you get a sense that it had sort of coalesced behind some specific leaders and was acting with a single purpose, or was it more individuals? Are there other like-minded delegates in the other states who are also on board, and has there been any collaboration between the states?
posted by Salieri at 7:48 AM on May 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Unless you think Trump can turn a blue state, all Clinton needs is FL, where 87% of Latinos have an unfavorable view of Trump.
posted by chris24 at 7:49 AM on May 22, 2016


Unless you think Trump can turn a blue state, all Clinton needs is FL

New CBS Battleground Poll shows Clinton with 1-point lead in Florida. The poll you link to was 2 weeks ago, when the race was different.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:52 AM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wasn't saying anything about the election polling in the link, just his unfavorables with Latinos.
posted by chris24 at 7:55 AM on May 22, 2016


Anything can and will happen in Florida, including voter suppression.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:02 AM on May 22, 2016


Absolutely. Registration and GOTV will be even more crucial than ever this year with all the GOP attempts at disenfranchising and the gutting of the VRA. In the ABC poll above Clinton actually leads +6 with adults but trails -2 with registered voters. 20% of the sample was unregistered and those favored her by +40.
posted by chris24 at 8:08 AM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Honestly corb, I'm kind of relieved that you'll be in a secret-service protected hotel.. if #NeverTrump has any measure of success, I really fear the violence that may erupt.
posted by zug at 8:42 AM on May 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Sanders campaign sent a very strongly worded email about defeating Wasserman-Schultz just now. Interesting.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:45 AM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is 'Stronger Together' the New @HillaryClinton Slogan?

(This would be a great slogan, IMHO)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:50 AM on May 22, 2016 [9 favorites]


I hope so. I think it's great too.
posted by chris24 at 8:51 AM on May 22, 2016


Anything can and will happen in Florida, including voter suppression.

Oh, totally. Send the FHP out to roust certain neighborhoods for suspected outstanding warrants, "sloppily" purge the voter rolls like a week before the election, who the hell knows what else, between AG Pam Bondi and Rick Scott, I wouldn't put anything past them.

Plus it's, you know, Florida. I wouldn't count out the organic support Trump has in the state.
posted by indubitable at 9:07 AM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


I had a weird Star Wars dream last night where Han Solo was bringing a friend onto the Millenium Falcon and the audience is like "No! Don't trust him!" because we all knew the guy was secretly an awful Sith murder-lord. When the camera panned back to him, it was Bernie Sanders. I don't know what the hell this election is doing to my brain but I really need this shit to be over, guys.

Also his costuming was objectively terrible. My subconscious clearly has no business dressing bad guys.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:37 AM on May 22, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'm not going to worry too much about polls at this point in the game. We may have been obsessed about this election for over a year now but most Americans have barely been paying attention. I'm putting my main hope in the fact that Clinton seems to have a tight, well-organized and well-funded campaign organization and Trump doesn't seem to actually know what a political campaign is.
posted by octothorpe at 9:39 AM on May 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


I had a dream last night that Trump as President was my Uber driver and he was drunk and hitting things and people and wouldn't take me where I wanted to go. So yeah, can't wait for this to be over.
posted by chris24 at 9:44 AM on May 22, 2016 [5 favorites]




I found out yesterday that a family member (Connecticut, Jewish) is voting for Trump. So I sometimes feel that I don't have any idea what's going to happen.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:46 AM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Okay, okay, fine. I promise not to panic. Can I still be frustrated and disappointed that at least 45% of voters are going to support a man-baby over one of the most qualified candidates to ever run for President?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:48 AM on May 22, 2016 [16 favorites]


Why Democrats Could Tolerate a Lot More Division in 2008
Yes, Hillary Clinton refused to drop out of the race until the very end and kept the party divided long after it was clear she couldn't win the nomination. (I hated her for it.) But everything worked out just fine in 2008, right? Why shouldn't we assume that history will repeat itself?

Because 2008 was a very different year. Democrats were trying to replace a Republican president who had job disapproval ratings in the mid-60s to low 70s throughout the summer and fall of 2008. Democrats -- both Obama and Clinton-- were pledging to change the direction of the country in a year when more than 80% of Americans consistently told pollsters the country was on the wrong track.

So Democrats could afford a little disunity. They had the wind at their backs.

They don't have the wind at their backs now. [...]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:50 AM on May 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump really is the babiest of the man-babies, isn't he?

I'm not too worried either. Let's see how things shake out post-convention. Clinton runs a very tight ship, and I think a lot of people are really going to pull together once the drama and hurt feelings of the primary are out of the way.

(I recently rewatched Clinton's speech from the floor in support of Obama at the 2008 convention, and it still brings tears to my eyes. That was so amazing.)
posted by Salieri at 9:53 AM on May 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm heartened by the fact that none of my family seems to be Trump supporters despite being reliable Republicans. And they're mostly white working-class voters who should be natural allies for him. But they're also deeply religious and Trump's life/words/behavior doesn't seem compatible with their values. The pastor at my mom's church, an Oklahoma Southern Baptist church that is by no measure progressive, was even speaking out against Trump and his campaign. If the religious right is not going to fall in behind the nominee Trump has no chance whatsoever.
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:59 AM on May 22, 2016 [4 favorites]




The evangelicals I know who usually would lean Republican are not crazy about Trump, and I don't think there's anything he can do to change that. He's not one of them and he has a serious character issue. I don't think they'll all fall in line behind him, not by a longshot.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:13 AM on May 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


roomthreeseventeen: "Is 'Stronger Together' the New @HillaryClinton Slogan?

(This would be a great slogan, IMHO)
"

That link doesn't seem to work but it is a good slogan.
posted by octothorpe at 10:18 AM on May 22, 2016


octothorpe, sorry, they seem to have deleted it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:20 AM on May 22, 2016


Anecdotally, we all might know of some Republicans who say they won't vote for Trump (including my mom and dad!). But the polling of the last week suggests that ~90% of GOP voters are already supporting him over Clinton.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:21 AM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


I suspect a lot of Republicans with liberal children are just lying to them about who they will vote for rather than start an argument.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 11:23 AM on May 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


I know a few Republicans who don't like Trump but if he's the nominee, they'll vote for him because he's the Republican running.
posted by octothorpe at 11:32 AM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Sanders campaign sent a very strongly worded email about defeating Wasserman-Schultz just now. Interesting.

It sounds like Sanders is about to endorse a whole slate of progressive candidates soon as well:
A few weeks ago, we raised a tremendous amount of money for three progressive candidates for Congress. Your support changed their races overnight. In the days ahead, we’re going to add a dozen or more additional candidates to that list.
posted by kyp at 11:43 AM on May 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Senator Sanders has every right to finish off his campaign however he chooses,” Clinton told Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” Sunday.
posted by zarq at 12:12 PM on May 22, 2016


Sanders actively fundraising--rather than just voicing support--for the primary opponent of the head of the DNC looks to me like a sign that his campaign is entering full-on "screw you guys, I'm taking my toys and going home" mode.

It's clear he's decided he's ok with burning all his bridges with the Democratic Party, which I interpret as meaning that he's decided either not to run for reelection to the Senate in 2018, or to do it without any support from the party. Which, fine, his prerogative.

What I do worry about, though, is that he may be trying to signal his willingness to be a spoiler candidate in the presidential race. I don't think (I hope!) he'd actually do that--it would destroy both his career and, by guaranteeing a Trump presidency, his legacy--but I wonder if maybe he's looking to play a game of high-stakes chicken with the party in order to force concessions.

Either way, it will be interesting to learn who those "dozen or more" candidates are. Is he going to be focusing only on races in which a Dem incumbent is facing a primary challenge from the left, or will he also target races with a vulnerable Republican incumbent? This is the difference between Tea Party-style disruption tactics and a sincere attempt to move Congress leftward. We'll have to wait and see, I suppose.
posted by dersins at 12:28 PM on May 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


A little late to support primary opponents for this election, isn't it?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:47 PM on May 22, 2016


Thanks for sharing that, kyp! Just kicked in a few bucks to help Bernie help progressive Dems win their primaries.
posted by notyou at 12:48 PM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


The FLA primary is August 30.
posted by notyou at 12:49 PM on May 22, 2016


What I do worry about, though, is that he may be trying to signal his willingness to be a spoiler candidate in the presidential race.

Sanders already ruled that out a long time ago and I don't think he'd change his mind now (and, I might add as a Sanders supporter, I wouldn't support him there if he did). I would love to see a real up for grabs election though. 7-8 candidates all competing on the same field in the same debate for votes. It's kinda ridiculous that two parties have had the only voices for this long. They might actually have to appeal to people if they couldn't count on "ain't he bad!" as their main argument! Wouldn't that be lovely?
posted by downtohisturtles at 12:49 PM on May 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Huh, is Florida just weird, or do lots of states have one primary for President and then another primary for everyone else? I know that here in Pennsylvania we did it all in one shot.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:51 PM on May 22, 2016


I would love to see a real up for grabs election though. 7-8 candidates all competing on the same field in the same debate for votes.

Sounds fun, but that's a recipe for the House of Representatives picking the next president, which, yeah, no thanks.
posted by dersins at 12:53 PM on May 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


...or do lots of states have one primary for President and then another primary for everyone else?

Yep.
posted by notyou at 1:02 PM on May 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


Under the current HoR no. That's a recipe for disaster. But I'm talking in grand ideas of what could and should be. Not the ugly reality we see before us.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:03 PM on May 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Huh, is Florida just weird, or do lots of states have one primary for President and then another primary for everyone else? I know that here in Pennsylvania we did it all in one shot.

Hawaii holds the non-presidential primary in August as well.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:03 PM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


But I'm talking in grand ideas of what could and should be. Not the ugly reality we see before us.

And there we have the fundamental divide in the Democratic Party this cycle.
posted by dersins at 1:06 PM on May 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yep. It's all about Bernie/Hillary. Sigh...
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:09 PM on May 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Endorsing and assisting progressive candidates is a somewhat more productive use of the end of his campaign. I'll be interested to see how the incumbents that this Bernie Boost means to challenge line up with the dude's enemies list.
posted by EatTheWeak at 1:18 PM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


He hasn't done a lot of this, but last month his campaign made some noise with three endorsement/fundraising help outs:

In fundraising appeals being sent Wednesday, Mr. Sanders asks for contributions to be divided among his campaign and those of Zephyr Teachout of New York, Pramila Jayapal of Washington state and Lucy Flores of Nevada. All three women have endorsed his presidential campaign.

Teachout ran hard against Cuomo in the NY gov primary, but I dunno if Cuomo's on the dude's enemies list or not.
posted by notyou at 1:32 PM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Joe Rogan Experience #801 - Gary Johnson

Around the 1:31:00 mark he says he would end action against Edward Snowden and give him a pass.
posted by bukvich at 2:51 PM on May 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


If we had a proportional system, we could end up with 5 or 6 parties representative of particular constituencies:

From Left - > Right

True Leftists:
  • Symbol: ?
  • Domestic Policy: ?
  • International Policy: Internecine.
  • Party Leader: ?
Social Democrats:
  • Symbol: Songbird
  • Domestic Policy: Egalitarian.
  • Foreign Policy: Reluctant
  • Party Leader: Bernie
Liberals:
  • Symbol: Jackass
  • Domestic Policy: Technocratic.
  • Foreign Policy: Interventionist.
  • Party Leader: Hillary
P90X:
  • Symbol: Badass Eagle
  • Domestic Policy: Objectivist.
  • Foreign Policy: Muscular.
  • Party Leader: Paul Ryan
Sons of Reagan:
  • Symbol: Elephant
  • Domestic Policy: Reactionary.
  • Foreign Policy: Drive the communists islamists off the edge of the earth
  • Party Leader: Donald Trump
Don't Call Us Nazis (but don't not call us Nazis either):
  • Symbol: Cross (not on fire... radiating justice in a flame-like fashion)
  • Domestic Policy: Brown People need to leave
  • Foreign Policy: Brown People need to die
  • Party Leader: Donald Trump
posted by ethansr at 4:14 PM on May 22, 2016 [13 favorites]


The last two parties are identical except one has a xenophobic isolationist stance while the other has a xenophobic interventionist stance. You also forgot that there's probably one or two parties worth of religious people.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:38 PM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders already ruled that out a long time ago and I don't think he'd change his mind now (and, I might add as a Sanders supporter, I wouldn't support him there if he did). I would love to see a real up for grabs election though. 7-8 candidates all competing on the same field in the same debate for votes. It's kinda ridiculous that two parties have had the only voices for this long. They might actually have to appeal to people if they couldn't count on "ain't he bad!" as their main argument! Wouldn't that be lovely?

Literally impossible without amending the Constitution, sorry.
posted by kafziel at 4:46 PM on May 22, 2016


It is not constitutionally prohibited to have more than two candidates for President.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:56 PM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, it isn't "literally impossible" but it is "figuratively impossible". Maybe this is the new meaning of literally which means the opposite of literally.

Because while not prohibited or literally impossible it is structurally so unlikely as to be impossible to a first approximation.
posted by Justinian at 5:00 PM on May 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


There are already many candidates for president. The current system favors centrists with broad appeal. We could amend the system to give demagogues who can eke out a slim plurality a better shot, I guess.
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:00 PM on May 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


It is not constitutionally prohibited to have more than two candidates for President.

No. There often are more than two. But because of the way that the electoral college works instead of something like a straight IRV election for the president/VP ticket there will usually be no more than two viable contenders and one will often act as a spoiler.

If it was an IRV you could have a ticket like this:

[1] Bernie Sanders
[5] Donald Trump
[2] Hilary Clinton
[3] Willard Romney
[4] Ted Cruz
posted by Talez at 5:00 PM on May 22, 2016


And that's the part that would require a constitutional change.
posted by Talez at 5:00 PM on May 22, 2016


It is not constitutionally prohibited to have more than two candidates for President.

The 12th amendment quite plainly prohibits having more than 2 comparatively viable candidates for President. There can never be an election with 7-8 candidates that is actually up for grabs.
posted by kafziel at 5:02 PM on May 22, 2016


"The 12th amendment quite plainly prohibits having more than 2 comparatively viable candidates for President."

I'm confused. The 12th amendment changes how VPs are selected, and reduces the top voter-getters the House may pick among from 5 to 3, in the rare case the election is thrown to the House. And since it went into effect in 1804 there HAVE been three-way and more-way elections with viable candidates -- most notably the 4-way clusterfuck of 1860 that resulted in Lincoln's election. But also in 1856 when the Whigs collapsed; in 1912 when TR ran as a Bull Moose; and others.

I actually went and read the text of the amendment to see what I'm missing -- but it isn't plain to me, can you explain?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:55 PM on May 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think what he is pointing out really goes back to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution and is the same in the 12th Amendment. That is, if no candidate gets an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the President is selected by the House of Representatives.

If you have more than two viable parties, then the likelihood of none getting a majority and the election going to the House is much more probable. So while it isn't actually prohibited by the Constitution, it is in nobody's interest to promote lots of parties. As Justinian points out it is more figurative than literal.
posted by JackFlash at 6:23 PM on May 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


In other words, if some third party candidate were lucky enough to peel off California or Texas, you very likely are heading to a hung election.
posted by JackFlash at 6:29 PM on May 22, 2016


If you have more than two viable parties, then the likelihood of none getting a majority and the election going to the House is much more probable. So while it isn't actually prohibited by the Constitution, it is in nobody's interest to promote lots of parties. As Justinian points out it is more figurative than literal.

And then, if you have three or more people in the House and there isn't one clear winner or one clear loser, you can't get a majority there either. The election hangs until someone voluntarily drops out, which nobody has an incentive to do.
posted by kafziel at 7:02 PM on May 22, 2016


I'm liking the current Californian system more and more... wide-open primary where everybody votes off one ballot. All the major party candidates, minor party candidates and joke candidates in one place, then the top two (regardless of their total vote) go into the Fall Election, UNLESS one candidate gets 50%+1, then it's all over. So June isn't really a "Primary", it's the Main Election, with November being the "Run-Off". Probably the best thing based on a successful initiative campaign in my 40 years of voting. Of course, we still need to convince people to come out to vote in June, and to read the Voter Handbooks with the candidates' statements then try to avoid injuries caused by eye-rolling while reading the joke candidates' statements.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:21 PM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


And then, if you have three or more people in the House and there isn't one clear winner or one clear loser, you can't get a majority there either. The election hangs until someone voluntarily drops out, which nobody has an incentive to do

Kind of. The Vice President is elected by the Senate and becomes the acting President until the House comes through with a majority vote. So at least there wouldn't be a situation where no President can be seated. Theoretically the Senate could deadlock 50-50 and fail to elect a vice-President in which case the Speaker of the House would become President until one of the previous two deadlocks is resolved.
posted by Justinian at 7:43 PM on May 22, 2016






OMG, everyone panic!
posted by octothorpe at 8:28 PM on May 22, 2016


ok
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:45 PM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


panicking.
posted by futz at 9:12 PM on May 22, 2016


I wouldn't say I'm panicking, but knowing what the GOP will throw at Clinton, and knowing the media is 100% in the tank for Trump, I'm not nearly as relaxed about it as I was a month or so ago.

Like, just imagine for just a second that we found out that Hillary had ties to the mob -- there would be no end to it on the news channels. But Trump skates, because he's good for business, and besides, everyone is so fatigued from hearing about all the cartoonishly despicable thing's he's said and done over the years that it barely registers. I'm certainly not immune to it -- I saw the mob story linked above and didn't even bother clicking, because of course Donald Trump is connected to the mob. And yet -- Donald Trump, the GOP's presumptive, is connected to the mob! This seems like something people might want to set aside the 300th replay of the "John Miller" tapes to talk about!

So then a few minutes later in my news feed travels, I see this post about the cratering energy industry jobs here in PA, and though the post has nothing to do with politics, all I could think about was the ads that Trump will be running in this purple state telling everyone that Hillary took their jobs away, but no-nonsense tell-it-like-it-is successful businessman Donald Trump will bring them back.

So, uh, yeah, I do think some concern about tightening of polls is warranted, no matter how many caveats there are about national polls this far out.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:14 PM on May 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


the media is 100% in the tank for Trump
An audacious claim, but one that is beginning to develop some real truth... I'd say 55% 'in the tank' and rising faster than his voter polls as press entities decide there's nothing they can do about him besides ride the bandwagon.

no-nonsense tell-it-like-it-is successful businessman
Too few people realize that this combination of words makes a multi-level oxymoron.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:22 PM on May 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


I’d say 55% ‘in the tank’

Who? Which media? Fox, and -at least at one point, Joe Scarborough? Citations needed. (There’s a solid difference between “in the tank” and “breathlessly reporting whatever possible in order to sustain the drama.)

In not-in-the-tank news, you have William Saletan at Slate with “Ten things every politician who endorses Donald Trump should be forced to defend.”
posted by Going To Maine at 9:29 PM on May 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


There’s a solid difference between “in the tank” and “breathlessly reporting whatever possible in order to sustain the drama.

My point above was that there really isn't much of a difference, because the endless coverage of all of the dumb things he says and does has numbing effect that has the potential to overwhelm any negative coverage he gets. His incessant creation of viral outrage is like a denial-of-service attack on the sensibilities of voters.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:44 PM on May 22, 2016 [7 favorites]


Ed Kilgore says it's about to suck to be Trump:
"At key moments in the campaign like the debates, Trump will no longer be addressing an audience that inherently hates "political correctness" and thus has a high tolerance for borderline racist and sexist rhetoric and insult-comedy. And Clinton and her allies will be able deploy their massive oppo-research files on Trump in a consistent, relentless manner very much unlike the occasional, clumsy, and halfhearted Trump-bashing undertaken by his primary opponents and the mainstream media. After all, it's not like Democrats need to treat him with kid gloves because they'll need to appeal to his core supporters down the road."
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:48 PM on May 22, 2016 [20 favorites]


Why would trump's mob ties be a problem? We've had all kinds of movies and TV series showing mobsters as dedicated family men Just Like Us. Mobsters are cool now, so Trump will only be cooler by association.
posted by happyroach at 10:01 PM on May 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Trump Fatigue" and the end of the American experiment
There's been some chatter that America is now experiencing a form of  "Trump fatigue." That's Trump's non-stop barrage of half-truths, outright lies, and over-the-top outrageousness has finally overloaded and broken the political machine. That the public and especially the news media -- after the infinityith comment-that's-supposed-to-end-Trump's-campaign-but-didn't -- has thrown up its hands and surrendered. And with the conventional outrage machine broken, voters are just falling into our usual bunkers. as if this were your normal old U.S. election and Mitt McCain McReagan were running against Lyndon F. Gore.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:09 PM on May 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also, in the New York Mag "It's about to Suck to be Trump "article, pay attention to what "Trumpette" is saying in the comments. These are exactly the talking points the Trump campaign will be using in the general election. Most likely because Trumpette is a paid member of the Trump campaign.
posted by happyroach at 10:17 PM on May 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


@PostPolls: What if Mitt Romney runs? 22% would support him as an independent against Clinton (37%) and Trump (35%)
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:44 PM on May 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Most likely because Trumpette is a paid member of the Trump campaign.

I assume this is similar to "Smurfette", i.e. she's the only female in the entire staff.
posted by mmoncur at 11:32 PM on May 22, 2016 [5 favorites]




It's so hard to keep from thinking about Trump, but sometimes, you just gotta...

There have been WAY too many Trump-topical NON-editorial comics lately... I get it, there's so much obvious material, but ple-e-ease! This one, however, captured my thinking near-perfectly.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:20 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Jeeves and a Man called The Donald
A sporting Jeeves story, with apologies to P.G. Wodehouse

posted by Joe in Australia at 2:49 AM on May 23, 2016


Just a reply to an election comment in a non-election thread :

I think conventional wisdom goes that Trump is only beating Clinton, while benefiting from a bump in support of Republicans giving in and accepting him. And Clinton should receive the same bump when she finally defeats Sanders.

All that could be pundit bunk : It's plausible the Republicans' conversion to Trump is progressing but slower than anyone realizes. And Clinton might fail spectacularly to as she pivots rightward for the general.

Aside from all that, there is one wildcard reason president Trump could really trounce Clinton :

Trump is not tied down by facts, much like Bush v2 and other Republicans. Trump is also not tied down by Republican policy. Trump could pivot for the general in ways no Democrat can fathom. Will he? Does he even know how? Or will he spout random shit? Can he even hire advisers who know how? Or does he hire idiots? Who knows!

It's not even about Trump anymore. It's about the people running his campaign. And the Republicans who migrate to his campaign. If Trump has advisers who understand the voters well, and do not believe the Kochs' think tanks or any other ideology, then Trump becomes extremely dangerous.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:06 AM on May 23, 2016


All signs now pointing to a very difficult campaign ahead. Because while polls today don't show us the outcome in 6 months, they do prove to us that a Trump victory is entirely feasible as things stand. A lot to be worried about. You may also panic if you wish.
posted by howfar at 5:39 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Don't Panic.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:45 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well I can predict one thing for sure, come election night I will be weeping. Whether they will be tears of joy and relief or tears of anger and fear remains to be seen.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:48 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Don't know if it's been linked here before, but The Wackiest Donald Trump Conspiracy Theory Yet: Did the media sit on damaging revelations until they'd helped him secure the GOP nomination?

Ummmh, I don't know:

Among other things, we learned from the tapes that Republicans have nominated an egomaniac with an Andy Kaufmanesque repertoire and his very own Tony Clifton-style alter egos.

Andy Kaufmanesque? Tony Clifton-style?
If anything, I think this would have only helped him to clinch the nomination even faster.

But seriously, how is calling up journalists under false names any worse than, say, advocating torture, advocating the murder of non-combatants, contemplating the use of the IRS for his personal vendettas, proposing to strip millions of US citizens of their constitutional rights, or the other umpteen cartoonishly evil policy proposals, immediate reversals thereof etc. etc.

Not that bragging to journalists under a false name is in any way OK for a presidential candidate, but in what universe is it even in the same category of evil as any of these?

Oh, right, I forgot: It doesn't matter what a candidate stands for or what his intentions are or what the course he wants the country to take.
The only thing that matters is what he did or did not do in the past, regardless of whether that has anything to with the ability to serve as president. Whether he inhaled. Whether she showed sufficient sympathy with the woman that was molested by her husband. Whether he bullied someone in high school. Whether he slipped on a banana peel. Or whether he sowed self-serving stories in the press.
posted by sour cream at 5:51 AM on May 23, 2016


I'm panicking. This feels like 2000 all over again.
posted by humanfont at 6:22 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm panicking. This feels like 2000 all over again.

In 2000, whites were 81% of the vote. This year they'll be 70%.
posted by chris24 at 6:34 AM on May 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm panicking. This feels like 2000 all over again.

Who is Joe Lieberman in this version?
posted by Drinky Die at 6:35 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


In 2000, whites were 81% of the vote. This year they'll be 70%.

I honestly would be surprised if that were the case. There have been a ton of voter suppression laws passed since then, and parts of the Voting Rights Act that existed in 2000 do not exist anymore. I'm not saying anyone should panic, but if we aren't vigilant, Donald Trump is going to walk away with this election.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:37 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


In 2000, whites were 81% of the vote. This year they'll be 70%.

I honestly would be surprised if that were the case.


In 2012, whites were 72%. Yes, the VRA changes happened in 2013, but even if disenfranchisement eliminates some of the demographic change, it's going to be much different than 2000. But I agree, vigilance, registration and GOTV is key.
posted by chris24 at 6:41 AM on May 23, 2016


On journalistic responsibility in the face of Outrage Fatigue.
posted by bardophile at 7:07 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Don't know if it's been linked here before, but The Wackiest Donald Trump Conspiracy Theory Yet: Did the media sit on damaging revelations until they'd helped him secure the GOP nomination?

Is it really a conspiracy, though? Or is it just part-and-parcel of "the media" doing its entirely predictable build-you-up-tear-you-down kabuki?

My gut feeling (or forlorn hope, I can't tell which) is that we're cresting on the "build-up" phase, and then post-RNC "the media" wave is going to crash down, and hard. All of the Mafia ties, the chronically bankrupt business practices, spousal abuse, hucksterism, crony capitalism, you name it, it's all going to be churned up in the "tear-down" phase.

I think there's going to be a stage where all that dirty laundry gets put in sharp relief, and it's going to harden the hard-core, but switch off alot of the fence-sitters at the same time. I just don't think we've made it there yet. Fingers crossed, breath held...
posted by the painkiller at 7:08 AM on May 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


But seriously, how is calling up journalists under false names any worse than, say, advocating torture, advocating the murder of non-combatants, contemplating the use of the IRS for his personal vendettas, proposing to strip millions of US citizens of their constitutional rights, or the other...

Apparently our moral yardstick is not actually calibrated to any moral standard, but instead is based on how previous presidents and presidential candidates have conventionally behaved and what they have gotten away with. Which is all kinds of shit. But apparently going outside the box in wacky ways is what generates sticky levels of indignation. It's hard to get a discussion going on substance rather than style.
posted by puddledork at 7:11 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Who is Joe Lieberman in this version?

I'm actually trying to think of who would be an equally disqualifying running mate for Hillary. However, I do not want to speak my ideas out loud lest they be heard and implemented.
posted by delfin at 7:18 AM on May 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't believe in panicking. I believe in working to prevent catastrophic outcomes. So if you're feeling panicky, try to figure out what you can do to help. I'm going to recommend joining your local chapter of the League of Women Voters. (You don't have to be a woman.) They're actively fighting vote suppression, and it will help you stay informed about local and state-level elections.

Anyone have any other panic-fighting suggestions?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:18 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Gary Johnson gave me an herbal remedy.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:20 AM on May 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


Counterintuitive, but help Republicans fight Trump. We are the best positioned to fight and to pull off his votes in the event he is in fact nominated.
posted by corb at 7:22 AM on May 23, 2016 [6 favorites]


Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare For All!
In The New York Times, political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels argue that voters rarely vote based on issues, and that this is true even for Bernie Sanders backers. Citing a survey released early this year, they say that Sanders supporters are actually less likely to back a number of his issue positions than supporters of Hillary Clinton are:
In a survey conducted for the American National Election Studies in late January, supporters of Mr. Sanders were ... less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor ... a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes.
And young voters in general, while they claim to be more progressive than oldsters, may actually be less so:
[...] For example, young Democrats were less likely than older Democrats to support increased government funding of health care, substantially less likely to favor a higher minimum wage and less likely to support expanding government services. Their distinctive liberalism is mostly a matter of adopting campaign labels, not policy preferences.
[...] I wonder if they think the "millionaires and billionaires" are the bad manipulators of the system while people with billion-dollar start-ups are the beneficent system manipulators. And maybe, to them, Bernieism is like Uber, but for politics -- it's new, it undercuts something old and seemingly sclerotic, so it must be cool.

I respond to the Sanders message -- but I know that what he wants to do would require European levels of taxation. I can see that as a worthwhile trade-off, but I think think a GOP general election campaign against Sanders would point out the tax cost of what he wants to do, and a lot of people who like him now would recoil in horror. If this survey is right, they don't understand what he's proposing.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:24 AM on May 23, 2016 [15 favorites]


corb At this point I'd even help the so-called "Pro-Life" scumbuckets if they'd actually vote Clinton and help prevent a Trump presidency.

The problem is that I doubt very many Republicans have the principles you do. We've watched most of the high profile #NeverTrump types switch to endorsing him and saying that Clinton would be worse for America already. Given the intensely tribal nature of politics in America I find this disappointing, but not really surprising. Team Republican is going to get behind their candidate, same as Team Democrat is going to get behind theirs.

On the one hand that's useful since it means the Bernie or Bust crowd is almost certain to be all talk and very little action indeed, same as the PUMA's were back in 2008.

On the other hand it also means that a lot of Republicans, including plenty of rank and file Republican voters, are very likely to just shrug and vote Trump because, well, he's got that R after his name.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of genuine #NeverTrump people there actually are. I'll support any of them I meet, but so far you're the only one I've actually encountered in the wild.

All the Republicans I know IRL are going to vote Trump, some are very enthusiastic about it, others are not fond of Trump but think Clinton is evil incarnate, or are not fond of Trump but think voting Republican is just something they have to do or they'll turn into "liberals" and they know that being a "liberal" is the worst thing a person can be.
posted by sotonohito at 7:53 AM on May 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh no, they would do Clinton/Lieberman 2016, wouldn't they? "..and I'm announcing as my running mate: The Man Who Saved Obamacare!!"
posted by ethansr at 8:20 AM on May 23, 2016


Frankly, at this point any poll showing Trump ahead would frighten me. Like, if you asked five random people and three said they were voting for Trump, it would frighten me. Or anyone at all saying they intend to vote for Trump. Anywhere. Ever.
posted by kyrademon at 8:20 AM on May 23, 2016 [18 favorites]




"After Winning on June 7th". They are expecting a victory in California and maybe New Jersey? That's confidence.
posted by FJT at 9:12 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


"After Winning on June 7th". They are expecting a victory in California and maybe New Jersey? That's confidence.

Well, Sanders is saying that Clinton calling herself the nominee is presumptive:

Sen. Bernie Sanders said Hillary Clinton is getting a bit ahead of herself. The senator from Vermont said on ABC News’ This Week that his Democratic opponent is “jumping the gun” by claiming she will definitely be the Democratic presidential contender. “We're going to have to do very, very, very well in the remaining nine contests,” Sanders recognized before adding, “I think we have a shot.”

On CNN, Sanders appeared to get a bit frustrated with host Jake Tapper when he asked whether he wasn’t misleading his supporters when he downplayed that Clinton had won “roughly 54 percent” of pledged delegates. “No,” Sanders fired back, “I assume that most of the people who come to my rallies can do arithmetic.”

posted by NoxAeternum at 9:19 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


“We're going to have to do very, very, very well in the remaining nine contests,” Sanders recognized before adding, “I think we have a shot.”

I know, right? After his victory in Oregon, Sanders only has to win California by about 47 points to catch Clinton!

“I assume that most of the people who come to my rallies can do arithmetic.”

It's not the supporters who appear to be struggling with the arithmetic.
posted by dersins at 9:22 AM on May 23, 2016 [18 favorites]


All the Republicans I know IRL are going to vote Trump, some are very enthusiastic about it, others are not fond of Trump but think Clinton is evil incarnate, or are not fond of Trump but think voting Republican is just something they have to do or they'll turn into "liberals" and they know that being a "liberal" is the worst thing a person can be.

The republicans I know in real life are just as concerned about stacking the supreme court with social conservatives as the democrats are about making sure they don't.

And yeah, they really hate Hillary.
posted by SteveInMaine at 9:23 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


My Republican relatives despise Hillary but say they're going to suck it up and vote for her, but I don't think they're typical.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:27 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Anne Gearan: Sanders to have major input in writing of Democratic Party platform
The two Democratic candidates have agreed with Democratic Party officials to a new apportionment of the 15-member committee that writes the platform, according to Democratic officials familiar with the compromise worked out this month.

Sanders will name five members and Clinton six, based on the number of popular votes each has received to date, one official said. Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will name four. The campaign choices were selected in consultation with the campaigns and the DNC from larger slates of 12 and 10 suggested by the campaigns.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:32 AM on May 23, 2016 [6 favorites]


So, realistically, that's 10 seats for Clinton and 5 for Sanders since DWS is from the same wing of the Democratic party as Clinton is. I'd hoped for better.
posted by sotonohito at 9:38 AM on May 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


The republicans I know in real life are just as concerned about stacking the supreme court with social conservatives as the democrats are about making sure they don't.

Ask them if we should have overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. Ask them if we should have overturned Pace v. Alabama. Hell, ask them if we should have overturned Bowers v. Hardwick.

Liberal judges make America a better place. Rehnquist told us the 14th amendment was to free the slaves and that's it. Warren liberated women's sexuality with it.
posted by Talez at 9:40 AM on May 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


So, realistically, that's 10 seats for Clinton and 5 for Sanders since DWS is from the same wing of the Democratic party as Clinton is. I'd hoped for better.

Given ~42-43% of the popular vote, that does seem a warped representation of the will of human, non-corporate-people Democratic voters.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:39 AM on May 23, 2016


If it were between Trump and Hillary Clinton, would you vote for Clinton?
If I were in a swing state, a state that matters, and the choice were between Clinton and Trump, I would vote against Trump. And by arithmetic, that means hold your nose and vote for Clinton.
Noam Chomsky
posted by y2karl at 10:56 AM on May 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


It looks like the chair of the platform drafting committee will be Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD). FWIW, he endorsed Clinton but wants her to "embrace" Sanders, who he's worked with on several major issues before.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:07 AM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ask them if we should have overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. Ask them if we should have overturned Pace v. Alabama. Hell, ask them if we should have overturned Bowers v. Hardwick.

"Uh yeah, doi, what part of "Original Intent of the Founding Fathers don't you get?"

Rehnquist told us the 14th amendment was to free the slaves and that's it. Warren liberated women's sexuality with it.

Which many conservatives will say was the entire problem with the 14th amendment. Can't have a fantasy Doris Day 1950s of women are liberated and shit.
posted by happyroach at 11:08 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Have you tried turning it off and on again?

I think this election season is trying to turn me off and on again.
posted by Flexagon at 11:28 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm liking the current Californian system more and more... wide-open primary where everybody votes off one ballot. All the major party candidates, minor party candidates and joke candidates in one place, then the top two (regardless of their total vote) go into the Fall Election, UNLESS one candidate gets 50%+1, then it's all over.

California's open primary law does not apply to presidential candidates.
posted by malocchio at 11:51 AM on May 23, 2016


Trump is not tied down by facts, much like Bush v2 and other Republicans. Trump is also not tied down by Republican policy. Trump could pivot for the general in ways no Democrat can fathom.

Eh, I don't think that's true. I mean, it's true in the sense that Trump could say anything. But there's limits to the positions he can take and still get Rs to vote for him. The republican party has had an issue nationally for quite a while that they have various groups with very different interests, sometimes at odds with each other, that they can't lose and still get enough votes. If Trump were to pivot in ways that would cut into actual D voters he'd be taking stances that would alienate some of those groups.

Currently he holds ground where, if he makes nicey-nice with other Rs who voters trust on their strong issues, people will hold their nose and vote for him. It's one thing for folks who are issue voters on abortion to ignore old support of Planned Parenthood. It's another for them to support him even if he were to, say, take a no limits on first trimester abortions stance.

tl;dr: I don't think there's much for him to pivot on and pick up voters without losing a similar or larger number of voters elsewhere.
posted by phearlez at