159 days to go. Stay strong
June 1, 2016 11:29 AM   Subscribe

Who Is David French and Is He Running for President? Conservative writer Bill Kristol floats a third party alternative for the US presidential race.
posted by lalex (1661 comments total) 38 users marked this as a favorite
 
In some photos, he has a beard, that'll have to go, at least. Also, surely you mean David Freedom.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:32 AM on June 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


They opened up about their marriage in a book, Home and Away, and shared the detailed rulebook they'd followed while he was in Iraq, which banned Nancy's use of Facebook (to avoid "the ghosts of boyfriends past"), phone conversations with men, or "meaningful e-mail exchanges about politics or any other subject."

When his wife began emailing with a colleague about faith, French asked her to end the relationship, writing that "the most intimate conversations a person has are about life and faith" — and that "spiritual and emotional intimacy frequently leads to physical intimacy."


vomits
posted by Existential Dread at 11:34 AM on June 1, 2016 [135 favorites]


Thank you, lalex.

Previous election thread.
posted by zarq at 11:34 AM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Would also like to thank Wordshore for all the previous election threads, if you happen to be lurking on your Metafilter break.
posted by peacheater at 11:36 AM on June 1, 2016 [34 favorites]


I don't think the lesson Kristol seems to have learned from Trump -- "People love a lunatic with no political experience" -- is really the lesson he should have learned from Trump.
posted by Etrigan at 11:37 AM on June 1, 2016 [30 favorites]


I'd advise people with limited free time not to bother learning who David French is, as he will vanish as quickly as he appeared.
posted by ejs at 11:38 AM on June 1, 2016 [31 favorites]


Adding my thanks to lalex and Wordshore as well.
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:38 AM on June 1, 2016


This floats, alright.
posted by Artw at 11:38 AM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Promise Keeper/Naked Libertarian '16
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:38 AM on June 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Yeah, Wordshore's threads are awesome but I noticed they'd disabled their account and the old one was becoming unmanageable. Thanks Wordshore!
posted by lalex at 11:38 AM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


They had me going until:

He's married to Nancy French, a ghostwriter for the Sarah Palin family, and they live in Tennessee with three children.

Nice one, guys. As if that shit's written. As if it's anything but stream of... well, I was going to say consciousness, but that can't be right.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:39 AM on June 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


The truly bizarre thing is why David French? There's a ton of Iraq Veterans way more qualified.
posted by corb at 11:40 AM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I mean, why not just ask Warren Jeffs, if you're really hell-bent on some sort of patriarchical bullshit misogynist? Did French also forbid his wife from driving the car alone? Eating hot dogs? I sure hope he refrained from any 'sins of the flesh' himself, because God can see you jerkin it, French.
posted by Existential Dread at 11:40 AM on June 1, 2016 [15 favorites]




> vomits

This is apparently the sort of person who passes for a sane Republican these days. That article has a link to a Kathryn Jean Lopez essay on NRO that includes this bit:

In the 1980s, George Gilder wrote, in his book Men and Marriage: “Unless very securely married, virtually any man will sleep with any attractive young woman. . . . In Washington the liberated princess can sleep with senators.” Though some of the “liberated princesses” have become politicians and powerful players themselves in the more than two decades since Gilder wrote that, the Cain story reminds us that our fallen nature remains, with decades of cultural confusion compounding the chaos.

It's true. We men must remain vigilant at all times, lest our junk leap unbidden into some fair maiden.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:41 AM on June 1, 2016 [37 favorites]


The truly bizarre thing is why David French? There's a ton of Iraq Veterans way more qualified.

Yeah, but which of them are willing to torpedo any future political aspirations for a no-chance run that will end up getting them blamed for Clinton's election?
posted by Etrigan at 11:41 AM on June 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


The full quote from the National Review article is
Before David left for Iraq, he and Nancy put together rules, in a painfully honest conversation about human frailty. There would be no drinking during the year of separation. Nancy would not “have phone conversations with men, or meaningful e-mail exchanges about politics or any other subject.” Nor would she be on Facebook, where “the ghosts of boyfriends past” could contact her. When Nancy innocently started e-mailing about faith with a man associated with a radio show she was on, she told David about it, and he asked her to end the relationship. David knew, with his “stomach clenching,” that “the most intimate conversations a person has are about life and faith” — and that “spiritual and emotional intimacy frequently leads to physical intimacy.”
There's nothing that screams "healthy marriage" more than a total lack of trust in your spouse.
posted by zarq at 11:42 AM on June 1, 2016 [94 favorites]


fun trivia question, which candidates for president running this year haven't been super shitty to women in some way
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:42 AM on June 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


I'd bet $1000 it turns out he's been unfaithful multiple times.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:43 AM on June 1, 2016 [40 favorites]


Well, if Bill Kristol is suggesting it, I don't see how it could possibly go wrong.
posted by Cookiebastard at 11:43 AM on June 1, 2016 [24 favorites]


Because Kristol is an idiot with no political connections.
posted by dilaudid at 11:43 AM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bill Kristol is really frantic to believe that he isn't to blame for Trump's ascendancy-- I've heard more than one DC story about his panicked thrashings and machinations to find any way to discover an alternative to Trump's candidacy.

Sorry, buddy! You helped destroy democracy!
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:43 AM on June 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


In unrelated news, Thurston Moore has written a song for Bernie Sanders. The price to buy a copy is a donation to the campaign.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:44 AM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


> I'd bet $1000 it turns out he's been unfaithful multiple times.

Well, yeah. That's how he "knew" with his "stomach clenching" that thinking leads to talking, which leads to k-i-s-s-i-n-g!
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:46 AM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


fun trivia question, which candidates for president running this year haven't been super shitty to women in some way

Has there ever been a candidate who wasn't?
posted by zarq at 11:47 AM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


fun trivia question, which candidates for president running this year haven't been super shitty to women in some way

Gary Johnson is pro-choice and pro-SSM, but he's also a states-rights sort of Libertarian, so he might be just sort of not particularly shitty to women but doesn't feel the need to keep other people from being shitty to them.
posted by Etrigan at 11:47 AM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Metafilter: God can see you jerkin it, French.
posted by dr_dank at 11:49 AM on June 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


So Bill Kristol has chosen this schmuck because he wants to split the vote because he really doesn't want Trump to win. Am I missing anything?
posted by Yowser at 11:49 AM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Bill Kristol floats a third party alternative

This floats, alright.


Floats like a Baby Ruth.
 
posted by Herodios at 11:49 AM on June 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


My track record for political predictions is pretty awful, but I don't think I'll fail when I predict that Bill Kristol's fantasy of running some Republican against Trump will amount to exactly nothing.

I do think French might have a better chance if he changed his name to something more Republican friendly though. Maybe David Freedom Fries?
posted by sotonohito at 11:50 AM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


lalex; Yeah, Wordshore's threads are awesome but I noticed they'd disabled their account and the old one was becoming unmanageable. Thanks Wordshore!

Too bad. Wordshore made a whole bunch of awesome posts. (Enough to forgive them for starting off by introducing Metafilter to Gangnam Style.) The election claims another victim, I guess.
posted by clawsoon at 11:51 AM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Gary Johnson is pro-choice and pro-SSM, but he's also a states-rights sort of Libertarian, so he might be just sort of not particularly shitty to women but doesn't feel the need to keep other people from being shitty to them.

I believe he supports parental involvement laws with regard to abortion, even though he's pro-choice.
posted by zarq at 11:51 AM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ah, you're right. He's also a states-rightser on that topic, despite being personally pro-choice.
posted by Etrigan at 11:52 AM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


every time i see french's name i just pretend people are talking about this french running for president
posted by burgerrr at 11:54 AM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


FRENCH FOR AMERICA 2016
posted by kirkaracha at 11:56 AM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Kristol, you putz, you got the wrong Mr. French. I might've voted for the other one.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:56 AM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I really, really want this to be an actual thing, because fuck Trump.

But, who are we kidding with this? It's Kristol, best known for somehow being a broken clock that can't even manage to be right twice a day. French's run is never going to materalise, much less draw enough votes from Trump to even play spoiler. (Not that a spoiler will even be required to ensure a Trump loss, knock on wood.)
posted by tobascodagama at 11:57 AM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The truly bizarre thing is why David French? There's a ton of Iraq Veterans way more qualified.

Absent that little affair, I bet we'd be looking at a Petraeus presidency.

I still haven't heard whether the Bushes or the Clintons were responsible for that particular honey trap.
posted by jamjam at 11:57 AM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Why @NRO's David French look like an evil James Cromwell fam?

Of course, "evil James Cromwell" is 90 percent redundant.
posted by Etrigan at 11:57 AM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


A general rule of thumb, says my rabbi, is that if Kristol is for something, supports it, it is wrong and bound to fail. Bill never has let me down for the past 5 years.
posted by Postroad at 11:57 AM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Okay, let me take this seriously for a moment. How is he getting on the ballot state-by-state? The article was very short on details (I suppose because there are none.)
posted by Automocar at 11:58 AM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


How is he getting on the ballot state-by-state?

Groundswell of popular support leading to millions of signatures and demands that French be on the ballot.

You know, just like how so many people took up their ballots to fight Tru--

Shit.
posted by Etrigan at 11:59 AM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't think the lesson Kristol seems to have learned from Trump -- 'People love a lunatic with no political experience' -- is really the lesson he should have learned from Trump.

This is the man who brought us Sarah Palin. He taught Trump the lesson.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:00 PM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm surprised Romney didn't volunteer to run as a spoiler. He's a well known name, doesn't like Trump, is good at playing the "sensible" statesman, and would get the discouraged Republicans to at least go to the polls and vote down-ticket. My understanding is that's anti-Trump Republicans biggest concern, not just losing the presidency but also damaging house/senate majorities.

Regardless, I doubt Trump can make much gains because he's poisoned himself demographically and done little to pivot, and winning over white men will have diminishing returns this year.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:00 PM on June 1, 2016


Technically, he can't get on all state ballots at this point. So....trial balloon to drum up more clicks for Kristol?
posted by Existential Dread at 12:00 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


let me take this seriously for a moment.

Why? Bill Kristol / David French apparently didn't. I've done more serious work deciding what to make for dinner than they appear to have done in planning this "candidacy".
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:01 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wait, wait... this wasn't from a bot?
posted by Artw at 12:02 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I wonder if he was considering the Libertarians before this weekend's stripping. After all, they're on most ballots. Although even before then, the fear would then be empowering them to spoil future Republican candidates.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:02 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


"I don't think the lesson Kristol seems to have learned from Trump -- 'People love a lunatic with no political experience' -- is really the lesson he should have learned from Trump."

This is the man who brought us Sarah Palin. He taught Trump the lesson.


Sarah Palin has a 5-2 electoral record and was in various elected offices for 13 years.
posted by Etrigan at 12:03 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The truly bizarre thing is why David French?

As far as I can tell, he seems to be the image of what the National Review neoconservatism would want in a candidate. Pro-war, can do the compassionate conservative thing on race, former military. Conservative on abortion, "good Christian man". Big on "entitlement reform".

Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. The entire Trump reaction has been against the things people like Bill Kristol have been selling. This is trying to sell the same emoting on social issues while giving the rich tax breaks and enriching the military industrial complex that have been the hallmark of the modern Republican party.

I just feel sorry for his wife and kid.
posted by zabuni at 12:04 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


There's nothing that screams "healthy marriage" more than a total lack of trust in your spouse.

I see a lot of rules for Nancy, but not many for David.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:04 PM on June 1, 2016 [37 favorites]


They opened up about their marriage in a book, Home and Away, and shared the detailed rulebook they'd followed while he was in Iraq, which banned Nancy's use of Facebook (to avoid "the ghosts of boyfriends past"), phone conversations with men, or "meaningful e-mail exchanges about politics or any other subject."

Surely this is a typo or something, right? Those rules applied to both of them?

No? (No.)

Ford knows I've been disillusioned many times so far this election season, but I would like to discover that mainstream America doesn't really believe that a husband should treat his wife as property.
posted by Gelatin at 12:05 PM on June 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


My new theory is that the absurdity of this election cycle has fully and permanently shattered the media's already precarious grasp of proportion.

We are Phineas Gage and Donald Trump is the iron rod.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:05 PM on June 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


We are Phineas Gage and Donald Trump is the iron rod.

Can we build a non-sequitur on this beautiful comparison? Is Clinton the inanimate carbon rod, or is she Homer?
posted by Going To Maine at 12:12 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Metafilter: God can see you jerkin it, French.

This makes all the election hoopla worthwhile.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:13 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bill Kristol floats a third party alternative

This floats, alright.


We all float, down here.
posted by Mayor West at 12:14 PM on June 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


Copy-pasted from the other thread, blogger Steve M echoes a prediction I've made before:
Trump will rubber-stamp whatever his party wants because he just doesn't care. He'll sign boilerplate Republican budgets and boilerplate Republican gun bills and boilerplate Republican abortion bills and boilerplate Republican deregulation bills and boilerplate Republican Obamacare repeal-but-not-replace bills. What does he care about? He cares about being America's alpha male[.]
posted by Gelatin at 12:15 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


So Bill Kristol has chosen this schmuck because he wants to split the vote because he really doesn't want Trump to win. Am I missing anything?

Ah, but you see, whoever runs against Trump is GUARANTEED the Presidency! Because Democrats and moderate Republicans (the five who are left) will all vote against Trump in a two-person race, and Hillary is about to be indicted for illegally classified treasonous emails to Vince Foster warning her about BENGHAZI right... about... NOW!

...NOW!

...right NOW!

*yells* I keep pushing the button but it's NOT DOING ANYTHING!
posted by delfin at 12:15 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Trump will rubber-stamp whatever his party wants because he just doesn't care.

cf. Rick Snyder, Governor of Michigan. If it isn't jobs, he'll sign off on any fucking thing. We don't have a helmet law in Michigan anymore.
posted by Etrigan at 12:17 PM on June 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


What does he care about? He cares about being America's alpha male[.]

That ought to make his pending emasculation by the electorate worth watching.

crosses fingers
posted by Existential Dread at 12:17 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


We men must remain vigilant at all times, lest our junk leap unbidden into some fair maiden.

Locked chastity belts for the lot of you.
posted by emjaybee at 12:18 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


That ought to make his pending emasculation by the electorate worth watching.

Electorate, hell -- Hillary Clinton will get there first, in the debates. I don't think most of the American public will like what they see after she gets in the first couple of good zingers.
posted by Gelatin at 12:20 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


As much as I would like to see a real right-wing spoiler emerge to hurt Trump and solidify a Democratic victory in the general, I'm not bothered to see Kristol's candidate turn out to be a joke. There was never much reason to hope, anyway.

The previous thread cited death and taxes as reliable things, but Bill Kristol being wrong is just as consistent.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:20 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


That ought to make his pending emasculation by the electorate worth watching.

Electorate, hell -- Hillary Clinton will get there first, in the debates


Yeah, not counting any of those chickens.
posted by Artw at 12:21 PM on June 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


That ought to make his pending emasculation by the electorate worth watching.

this is gonna be like when the witch-king of Angmar ate it only IRL and better
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:21 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


French/Palin 2016!!!!

Please please everyone support this. Get this on the ballot. Best idea ever to clinch the Hil/Bern ticket, just love the divided conservative communities.
posted by sammyo at 12:22 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


The impressive thing is that everyone expected Kristol's "impressive" candidate to be a massively overblown joke incapable of winning .1% of the vote, and it was still even dumber and more pointless than anyone thought.
posted by Copronymus at 12:23 PM on June 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


Hey, Kristol gave us the excuse to have a once again functioning election thread. Give the guy credit for having our interests at heart.
posted by meinvt at 12:26 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Locked chastity belts for the lot of you

electric sex pants
posted by poffin boffin at 12:27 PM on June 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Yeah, not counting any of those chickens.

That's cool and all, but counting those particular chickens relies on no one other than Trump himself. None of his supporters will really give a toss when he makes his answers up as he goes along and the so-called "liberal media" will give him a pass on most of his whoppers, while noting that Clinton was a bit off on some of her facts so both sides do it, but Trump has shown massive insecurity, especially concerning women, and precious little self-discipline. (Face it, if the past few weeks have been Trump acting "presidential," we've seen all he's ever gonna show us.)

I am confident in predicting that Trump's debate performances will not make him look better to the American electorate -- definitely not enough to overcome the electroal headwind he's facing.
posted by Gelatin at 12:28 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




Why doesn’t Bill Kristol run for president himself? "[A]s Winston Churchill, Kristol’s idol, once said, “Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm”—a sentiment that Kristol apparently lives by."
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:30 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]




I don't think most of the American public will like what they see after she gets in the first couple of good zingers.

I think that's probably true. Unfortunately, what a certain subset of men won't like is the sight of a woman threatening their idea of appropriate gender roles.

Which, I mean, assholes gonna asshole, so fuck those guys. But they do exist, at least (according to that piece) in New Jersey.

You know, home of Governor Chris Christie.

(And his wife.)
posted by dersins at 12:32 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Etrigan: "Of course, "evil James Cromwell" is 90 percent redundant."

Are you crazy? He invented the warp drive!
posted by Chrysostom at 12:35 PM on June 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Unfortunately, what a certain subset of men won't like is the sight of a woman threatening their idea of appropriate gender roles.

I agree, but those voters are probably a lost cause for the Democrats anyway. And if Trump's performance convinces some other, more moderate Republicans that they just can't stomach pulling the lever for Trump, especially in swing states, it'd be encouraging.
posted by Gelatin at 12:36 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


You can practically hear the hack journalists of the world gunning the engines on their "French Surrenders" jokes.
posted by mhoye at 12:37 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


He invented the warp drive!

For money. Basically, it's the last third of First Contact and Babe balanced against the entire rest of his career. He's played more assholes named Philip alone than he's played good guys.
posted by Etrigan at 12:38 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]




electric sex pants

The worst Stone Temple Pilots record by far.
posted by bongo_x at 12:38 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I am confident in predicting that Trump's debate performances will not make him look better to the American electorate -- definitely not enough to overcome the electroal headwind he's facing.

I am by no means predicting that Trump will do objectively well in the debates, but: remember the VP debates in '08? It was not possible to enter the debate with any lower expectations for Palin. She would have had to literally trip over the bottom step of the stage and go flying into the camera crew to under-perform. People here were ready for her to start speaking in tongues, or go off on a Grandpa-Simpson-esque rant about onions on her belt. So when she showed up and did a credible job of repeating the lines she had memorized, the takeaway from the media was that she dazzled everyone present. It didn't matter that Biden was a better speaker and actually answered the questions asked of him and generally played Oberyn Martell to her Gregor Clegane; it just mattered that she didn't embarrass herself on a national stage.

And so you see the problem looming with the upcoming Trump/Hilary debates.
posted by Mayor West at 12:39 PM on June 1, 2016 [30 favorites]


Trump is 100% not going to debate anyone, ever.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:41 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]




So when she showed up and did a credible job of repeating the lines she had memorized, the takeaway from the media was that she dazzled everyone present It didn't matter that Biden was a better speaker and actually answered the questioned asked of him and generally played Oberyn Martell to her Gregor Clegane; it just mattered that she didn't embarrass herself on a national stage.

But, unlike Palin, Trump's image is predicated on a sort of dick-waving alpha-male dominance that appeals to many of his supporters. If he doesn't DOMINATE THAT WOMAN, that image will be tarnished, even as some of his more idiotic supporters may have their fear/hatred of Clinton cemented.
posted by dersins at 12:44 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


David knew, with his “stomach clenching,” that “the most intimate conversations a person has are about life and faith” — and that “spiritual and emotional intimacy frequently leads to physical intimacy.”

Yeah, there's something clenching inside David, and it's a bit south of his stomach.
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:45 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


If he doesn't DOMINATE THAT WOMAN, that image will be tarnished, even as some of his more idiotic supporters may have their fear/hatred of Clinton cemented.

He'll blame it on the loser moderator, and the loser media who claim he lost.
posted by Etrigan at 12:45 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sure, the Debate Expectations game is a pert of the spin/narrative/horse-race coverage. But below some level of competence, merely beating the horrible expectations isn't going to help much.

Arguably Sarah Palin (and McCain's obvious lack of judgement in choosing her as VP) was a big part of the reason McCain lost. After all, before that decision and the weird suspending-the-race thing, he was considered a respected, moderate statesman.

My two-year-old nephew wouldn't be expected to do well in a presidential debate but that doesn't mean that people would vote for him because he "exceeded expectations" by using a complete sentence or whatever.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:47 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


What's most surprising to me is that the Republicsn elite have simply rolled over. I expected more of a fight, but its really just been a whimper. Now I expect to see a small puff of smoke after the convention, and they'll all just disappear and be replaced by Trump.
posted by herda05 at 12:47 PM on June 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


Trump is 100% not going to debate anyone, ever.

I could see him agreeing to do one of those sham debates where each candidate gets an hour to field questions from moderators and vetted audience members without ever having to share the stage with his/her opponent. But more likely I see him doing weekly "press conferences" where he stands behind a podium and rants for twenty minutes and then fields two or three softball questions from FoxNews or Breitbart and calls it a day.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:48 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Hmmm, what's your nephew's position on campaign finance reform?
posted by Chrysostom at 12:48 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


My two-year-old nephew wouldn't be expected to do well in a presidential debate but that doesn't mean that people would vote for him because he "exceeded expectations" by using a complete sentence or whatever.

Pretty sure I'd vote for him over Trump, even if he is constitutionally ineligible.
posted by dersins at 12:48 PM on June 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


I hope the David French thing sticks, if only because it would open up some great guest opportunities for Matt Walsh on SNL.
posted by goHermGO at 12:51 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


“spiritual and emotional intimacy frequently leads to physical intimacy.”

"I do not avoid women... but I do deny them my essence."
posted by ennui.bz at 12:52 PM on June 1, 2016 [35 favorites]


My two-year-old nephew wouldn't be expected to do well in a presidential debate but that doesn't mean that people would vote for him because he "exceeded expectations" by using a complete sentence or whatever.

Clearly your nephew is running on the wrong ticket. Fortunately, Trump has yet to pick his VP!
posted by Mayor West at 12:53 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


What's most surprising to me is that the Republican elite have simply rolled over.

Why not? There isn't going to be any other Republican nominee but Trump. On the one hand, many Republican elites seem to agree with me that a Trump presidential run is doomed to failure. There are too many electoral and demographic headwinds. And Trump turning off enough potential Republican votes to affect downticket races is no doubt causing party strategists lots of headaches.

But if he wins, he signs any cockamammie bill the Republican Congress passes and uses crib notes from the Heritage Foundation to select his Supreme Court nominees. So why not fall in line and hope for the best?
posted by Gelatin at 12:54 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


David knew ... that “spiritual and emotional intimacy frequently leads to physical intimacy.”

It's with a mixture of curiosity and revulsion that I wonder exactly how he knew that.
posted by Gelatin at 12:56 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


So why not fall in line and hope for the best?

Given that the loss of their souls is an insufficient sticking point, how about not supporting Trump because the potential downside (a hard turn towards authoritarianism for which their party is eternally blamed) is so enormous?
posted by stolyarova at 12:59 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's probably a bad idea for a man who is apparently terrified of being cuckolded to go up against a group that's now using 'cuck' as a go-to insult for establishment Republicans.
posted by truex at 12:59 PM on June 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


Given that the loss of their souls is an insufficient sticking point, how about not supporting Trump because the potential downside (a hard turn towards authoritarianism for which their party is eternally blamed) is so enormous?

LOL
posted by Artw at 1:00 PM on June 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


It's with a mixture of curiosity and revulsion that I wonder exactly how he knew that.

I went to Hillsdale College (I know, please, oh god I know, it turned me off of conservatism better than anything else could have) and I had a Catholic professor who taught both English and Political Science. He insisted that atheists couldn't really love each other, because Jesus wasn't in the relationship (including the bedroom) with them.

Considering how very anti-gay he also was, I wonder if imagining a three-way with Jesus helped him get it on with his wife.
posted by stolyarova at 1:02 PM on June 1, 2016 [15 favorites]




Considering how very anti-gay he also was, I wonder if imagining a three-way with Jesus helped him get it on with his wife.

Lends an entirely new meaning to the proselytizer's phrase "Can I share Jesus Christ with you?"
posted by dersins at 1:05 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I have to say, talk of a revolution from a magazine called The Jacobin is distinctly not at all comforting.
posted by stolyarova at 1:06 PM on June 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


The idea that, this late in the game, David French is the best they can do, says a lot about how broken the GOP is right now.

Meanwhile, you have reporters writing dreamily about Joe Biden and Jerry Brown so at least there are options on the Dem side.
posted by dw at 1:09 PM on June 1, 2016


GOP Voters Are Rallying Behind Trump As If He Were Any Other Candidate

I mean, what are they going to do, really? Drop him because he's an obviously insane racist idiot?
posted by Artw at 1:10 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Given that the loss of their souls is an insufficient sticking point, how about not supporting Trump because the potential downside (a hard turn towards authoritarianism for which their party is eternally blamed) is so enormous?

Here's the thing, the Republican Establishment is embracing Trump because he's proposing exactly the same policies as they would have proposed anyway. There's no down side whatsoever for them, Trumpism is the Republican Party platform and has been since at least 2008, if not 2000. They've already been pushing endless wars in all corners of the globe, complete destruction of the federal government and social safety net, and wholesale wealth transfers to the 0.01% from everyone else. A Trump victory would be a validation that they've done nothing wrong and a huge win on all policy fronts, and his loss could be easily deflected onto his personal buffoonishness, or pick a GOP heresy he vacillated between and blame that to regroup around Cruz, after all, conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

Republican elites are not rejecting Trump because they endorse Trump for the Presidency and think he embodies their political ideals. There's really not a trick to it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:10 PM on June 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


Trump is a huge change in terms of economic policy. Of course, the majority of Republicans have never read a single sentence of Bastiat or Hayek, so it's no surprise, really.
posted by stolyarova at 1:12 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


whom among us does not love to read the jacobin on a jolly summer after-noon
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:15 PM on June 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


As much as I have a great deal of certitude that Clinton will win both nomination and election, I am terrified of what Trump and his followers will do in the aftermath. He won't concede, obviously. Take the violence already demonstrated by his supporters and multiply by "crooked Shillary stole the election from you hard working people" and the 'not my President' shit that got thrown at Obama and it doesn't look good.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:17 PM on June 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


So when she showed up and did a credible job of repeating the lines she had memorized, the takeaway from the media was that she dazzled everyone present.

Don't know about her memory. She was in the habit of writing her lines on her hand to avoid a Rick Perry moment.
posted by JackFlash at 1:20 PM on June 1, 2016


Anyway, Jacobin is effectively a publication of the Democratic Socialists of America, a reformist organization, so while it may use revolutionary rhetoric, its political line, like that of Bernie Sanders, stays solidly within democratic reformism.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:22 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


The PGA apparently has a great sense of humor. They've held a championship at Trump National Doral Miami for 54 years (Trump bought the place a couple years ago). Cadillac, their sponsor, pulled out and so the Tour decided to relocate the event...to Mexico City.
posted by zachlipton at 1:23 PM on June 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


So how many people said "get the fuck away from me, Bill" before Kristol got this guy to agree to think about running?
posted by octothorpe at 1:24 PM on June 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


double block and bleed: "Is David French's dramatic entry into the race enough to get us a new post?" (from last post)

Oh God, what have I done?
posted by double block and bleed at 1:31 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I mean, what are they going to do, really? Drop him because he's an obviously insane racist idiot?

Since when have Republican voters shied away from a candidate because they were racist, insane, incompetent or dumber than a bag of hammers?
posted by zarq at 1:32 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


So how many people said "get the fuck away from me, Bill" before Kristol got this guy to agree to think about running?

I know I did.
posted by mazola at 1:34 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]




Maybe this goofy crap will finally make liberals embrace the ol' House Divided philosophy and start hashing out how to make Hillary more appealing to young lefties so we can take back congress.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:39 PM on June 1, 2016


A Hillary/Cuban ticket, maybe, for starters.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:39 PM on June 1, 2016


Or ffs: a Hillary/Warren ticket fuck it let's do this thing.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:40 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I'm still curious about how the Johnson/Weld ticket is going to affect things. Forget about this gambit by Kristol, it's just bat-shit insanity. But I just have this feeling there's going to be some Repubs checking out the Libertarian alternative.

I have no idea about the independent voters or how much support Hillary would lose (I hope the demographic factors stick with her). The more idiocy that Trump demonstrates the more traditional GOP voters are going to peel off him. Maybe not enough to push the Libertarians over the top but enough to hurt. That press conference yesterday did Trump no favors and the heat hasn't even turned up yet. The guy can't stop himself and it's only going to get worse.
posted by Ber at 1:43 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maybe this goofy crap will finally make liberals embrace the ol' House Divided philosophy and start hashing out how to make Hillary more appealing to young lefties so we can take back congress.

Ah, yes - the argument that the majority needs to kowtow to the young minority, or else they're going to wreck everything by taking their ball and going home.

That's never struck me as all that terribly compelling an argument.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:43 PM on June 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


Later in the interview, Cuban said he has more money than Trump.

“It’s not even close, I do,” Cuban said. “Before all the Trumpians jump on me on who has more money, the reason I know is when you file your federal election campaign reports, you have to list all your cash and liquid securities and bonds. You have to list them one by one. So we know without any question that as of May 27, Donald doesn’t have more than $165 million in cash and securities and bonds.

“And trust me, I’ve got a lot of more than that in cash, securities, and bonds,” he continued. “And so you know, I’m willing to bet dimes against dollars that that’s pretty much what he’s got.”


While all this dick measuring is a bit lol-worthy, it's not even relevant to the key issue, which is that Trump has no idea how to fucking govern, and is a racist and misogynist dipshit
posted by Existential Dread at 1:50 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


My prediction: Vermin Supreme will get more votes than David French.
posted by double block and bleed at 1:51 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I have this pet theory that when push comes to shove, a lot of the the wannabe-alphas who are currently backing Trump will look deep into their souls and decide that Hillary is tougher.

These are people after all who worship power. If they see Trump being ineffective, losing his cool, and they see Hillary keeping hers -- in the privacy of that voting booth, they may well just turn.

This is totally based on anecdotal experience of watching bullies operate. They smell which way the wind is blowing and go with the stronger alpha, regardless of what they were talking 5 minutes before.

Totally unscientific. And maybe wishful thinking. OK, definitely wishful thinking. But I can talk myself into it, and these days, don't we all need to talk ourselves into a little hope?
posted by lodurr at 1:52 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


That's never struck me as all that terribly compelling an argument.

True, which is why it's kind of sad that's one of the main arguments of the Sanders campaign these days.
posted by happyroach at 1:53 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Kristol totally missed out on being a financial pundit. Since he is 100% wrong about everything all of the time, people would clean up by doing the opposite of what he said. What a waste of oxygen that man is.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 1:54 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


My prediction: Vermin Supreme will get more votes than David French.

Vermin Supreme has a solid platform built on free ponies and mandatory dental hygiene. Why wouldn't he?
posted by stolyarova at 1:54 PM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]




This is totally based on anecdotal experience of watching bullies operate. They smell which way the wind is blowing and go with the stronger alpha, regardless of what they were talking 5 minutes before.

Serious question: Does this remain true even when the stronger alpha is female?
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:59 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


While all this dick measuring is a bit lol-worthy, it's not even relevant to the key issue, which is that Trump has no idea how to fucking govern, and is a racist and misogynist dipshit

I think being dishonest about the main thing that he's even famous for in the first place (being an obscenely rich and successful businessman) ties in with all of his other character problems. If people admire him for his business acumen, and that's all actually a charade built on decades of concealing his actual finances, that's something that should be hauled out in the open.
posted by Strange Interlude at 2:01 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Vermin Supreme sings The Star-Spangled Banner (slyt, thanks to homunculus)

And that's the most trenchant satire of jingoism I've seen in months. Nicely done, Vermin.
posted by stolyarova at 2:01 PM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


In a different world, James Cromwell could totally have made for a more sinisterly avuncular role as Tywin Lannister.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:02 PM on June 1, 2016


NoxAeternum Ah, yes - the argument that the majority needs to kowtow to the young minority, or else they're going to wreck everything by taking their ball and going home.


There's a difference between kowtowing and acknowledging the existence of a voting bloc and trying to appeal to them.

I realize that the liberal branch of the Democrats would like to just pretend that the left owes the Party their votes and that the Party owes the Left jack shit, but I don't think that's going to work out so well.

In a sane system we'd be different parties and work out a compromise when the time came to form a coalition government.

But this isn't a sane system, we're stuck being part of the same party, so we've got to work out the compromise in the party itself rather than being able to have a party that really satisfies either of us.

But trying to scold people into voting for a party that dislikes them and treats them as an embarrassment isn't likely to work too well in the long run.

The Democratic Party seems endlessly willing to compromise with the right leaning Democrats? Why is compromising with left leaning Democrats such a horrible thing in the minds of so many Democrats?
posted by sotonohito at 2:04 PM on June 1, 2016 [28 favorites]


I do think that once the convention comes, Sanders concedes, and the nom is Clinton's she will do some outreach to the left. Clinton is a canny politician and I think she knows that she'll have to give the left something. You can't just ignore 45% or so of your voters.
posted by sotonohito at 2:05 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I expect there'll be some conciliatory words etc... But at the end of the day she's theme plus ultra of neoliberal establishment candidates and that ain't going to change. If anything she'll be chasing after the illusory voting block of "moderate republicans" - i.e. The presumed supporters of all those candidates Trump crushed so completely in the primaries.
posted by Artw at 2:09 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]




Clinton may be a canny politician once she's in office and at work, but much of her campaign this cycle seems to be rather uninspired. I doubt she's going to make more than cursory overtures to Sanders fans. She'll probably take for granted that they'll vote for her by default. And fortunately for her, they probably will.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:13 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton will reach out to the left. Whatever tone she uses, whatever concessions she makes, whatever words she chooses won't matter. Her outreach will be loudly characterized as pandering and dishonest.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:13 PM on June 1, 2016 [43 favorites]


hey crazy idea how about if we give the lady a chance to tell us what her strategy is after the convention idk just spitballing here
posted by stolyarova at 2:14 PM on June 1, 2016 [49 favorites]


Serious question: Does this remain true even when the stronger alpha is female?

Serious answer: I really think it will, for at least some of them. This is based on watching a few female department heads or supervisors* who were petty, ruthless bullies with a lot of institutional or situational power, who commanded knee-jerk allegiance from subordinates who were petty, ruthless bullies.

BTW this is not intended a commentary on Clinton's leadership style. from what I can see of it -- mostly from reading Teh Emails -- I suspect she's actually a pretty good manager. and it would be totally fair to wonder whether that undermines my case. It may very well.

--
*only 2 of whom I've had the misfortune of reporting to.
posted by lodurr at 2:15 PM on June 1, 2016


hey crazy idea how about if we give the lady a chance to tell us what her strategy is after the convention idk just spitballing here

The bulk of these threads are baseless speculation regarding all of the players involved- both candidates and operators, voting populations and foreign powers, so if you're looking for prudence, you've come to the wrong place.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:17 PM on June 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


if you're looking for prudence, you've come to the wrong place

I mostly come here to see what insane thing Trump has done recently and to savor the clever commentary made by delightful MeFites. That isn't prudence, it's confirmation bias, but I love it.
posted by stolyarova at 2:20 PM on June 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


Faint of Butt Serious question: Does this remain true even when the stronger alpha is female?

I think that to the sort of person we're talking about "strong alpha female" is just nonsense words. A woman exhibiting the traits they'd describe as "alpha" isn't a strong alpha female, she's just a castrating bitch. Women can't be alpha.

I think that for the hardcore dudebro alpha male chasing Trump types, when Clinton inevitably crushes him in the debates it'll just intensify their hate of her and they will deny completely that she won. She will have tricked him, or the media just says she won because of the "pussy pass", or anything but her actually winning and Trump looking like a schmuck.

If Clinton, as I strongly suspect she will, succeeds in driving Trump into a frothing, screaming, rage fit then he hardcore Trump supporters will pretend that he was forceful and maintained frame to put Clinton back in her place, not that he threw a temper tantrum.

For the rest of America, I'm hoping that our hypothetical Clinton victory in the debates will show them just how utterly unqualified and unsuited for office Trump is.
posted by sotonohito at 2:21 PM on June 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


my favorite part of this election cycle is how we went from hearing people's gut-prediction theories about how Trump would lose the primaries despite all evidence to the contrary to hearing people's gut-prediction theories about how Trump will win the general despite all evidence to the contrary
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:21 PM on June 1, 2016 [29 favorites]


Artw, re: Clinton and the mythic "moderate Republican", I hope you aren't right but I fear you are.
posted by sotonohito at 2:22 PM on June 1, 2016


Ok. So here's the timeline as near as I can tell:

At around 2pm (PDT) on Sun. May 29, Bill Kristol tweets:
Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.
There's some speculation about who Kristol might be talking about but most people are still too busy getting drunk for Memorial Day so no one's got any answers yet. By Tue. May 31, the first day back from the long weekend, the media has basically sniffed out that Kristol is putting up David French for a third-party run. I can't quite tell who had it first, but really by about mid-day Tuesday, everyone knows the score.

Now here's where things get weird (even weirder?) for me. As far as I can tell, neither French nor Kristol have made any official announcement (or even an on-the-record confirmation) about this even though everyone seems to agree. The most relevant tweets (nearly 24 hours since the news broke) I could find from both are here:

@BillKristol, 9:52 PM (PDT), May 31, 2016:
Here in Israel, reading about possible @DavidAFrench candidacy, thought of Herzl: Im tirtzu, ein zo agada. If you will it, it is no dream.
@DavidAFrench, 8:34 PM (PDT), May 31, 2016:
I'm incredibly humbled by and grateful for the many expressions of support -- thank you.
Why so frickin' coy? "Possible [...] candidacy"? "Expressions of support"? Shit or get off the pot, ya wankers.
posted by mhum at 2:24 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bill Kristol is basically the Patron Saint of "well, keep on fucking that chicken"
posted by boo_radley at 2:27 PM on June 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


Maybe it's a mystery candidate, whomever the rumor mill is most favorable to at the time.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:29 PM on June 1, 2016


Golden Trump-Pheasant/Fucked Chicken '16
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:30 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Join me in the 'fuck it all' camp. I purchased this bumper sticker this morning. Can't wait to receive it.
posted by bologna on wry at 2:34 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]




Here in Israel, reading about possible @DavidAFrench candidacy, thought of Herzl: Im tirtzu, ein zo agada. If you will it, it is no dream.

Kristol forgot about the second half of the quote: agada hi ve’agada tisha’er: If you do not will it, a dream it is and a dream it will stay.

Or in the case of Bill Kristol's scheme: whether he wills it or not, it's a ridiculously stupid dream and a dream it will stay.
posted by zachlipton at 2:44 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Join me in the 'fuck it all' camp. I purchased this bumper sticker this morning.

Don't Blame Me; I Voted For Ragnarök.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:45 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maybe I'm missing something, but if Kristol wants a non-Trump conservative third-party standard-bearer, why is he crowning a creepy obscurity when the Libertarians have put together a decent ticket? I mean, yes, neither Johnson nor the Libertarian Party is not exactly establishment conservatism, but, dude, if you're going third party, you have to be willing to concede a little on your ideology, because your ideological peers nominated someone else.

And unlike French, Johnson is actually on all the ballots and with name recognition. And as far as I can tell, nobody violently hates him (I don't subscribe to his political stance at all, but that's different from finding him repugnant).
posted by jackbishop at 2:46 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hey, whatever happened to Deez Nuts?
posted by Cookiebastard at 2:52 PM on June 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


He lost his base of support when he never really found a way to deal with the problem of updog.
posted by No-sword at 3:02 PM on June 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


What's updog?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:04 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


What's updog?

Not much what's up with you?
posted by Talez at 3:06 PM on June 1, 2016 [21 favorites]


YO! WHAT'S UP DOGG!?!
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:06 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Not much dog what's--aw, man.
posted by No-sword at 3:08 PM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


We need a new election thread.
posted by mazola at 3:10 PM on June 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


We need a new election.
posted by zachlipton at 3:12 PM on June 1, 2016 [46 favorites]


Vote for the 2016 Election Thread in the 2016 Election
posted by Apocryphon at 3:16 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Absent that little affair, I bet we'd be looking at a Petraeus presidency.

I've wondered why McChrystal hasn't been suggested. They skipped all of the way to General Mattis, who doesn't have household name recognition.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:18 PM on June 1, 2016


I have it on good authority that Kristol's going to announce Jimmy McMillan as the *real* independent candidate in five minutes.
posted by duffell at 3:19 PM on June 1, 2016


oh fuck, the good authority was Kristol, nm I don't know what to trust now
posted by duffell at 3:21 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


This was posted deep down in the last thread, but it is fantastic and everybody should go read it:

Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Was Never Going to Be Easy. But Did It Have to Get This Hard?
After all, the presidency is a public, performative job. She can’t just suffer through the indignity of campaigning and then hole up with her policy papers. It’s not enough to have a plan; you have to sell it to the country, over and over again. Obama proved to be particularly adept at using the media to disseminate his administration’s messages to the audiences it was trying to reach, but he is a masterful orator. Bill Clinton, too. Even George W. Bush was charismatic in his way.

But if, as in this election, a man who spews hate and vulgarity, with no comprehension of how government works, can become presidentially plausible because he is magnetic while a capable, workaholic woman who knows policy inside and out struggles because she is not magnetic, perhaps we should reevaluate magnetism’s importance. It’s worth asking to what degree charisma, as we have defined it, is a masculine trait. Can a woman appeal to the country in the same way we are used to men doing it? Though those on both the right and the left moan about “woman cards,” it would be impossible, and dishonest, to not recognize gender as a central, defining, complicated, and often invisible force in this election. It is one of the factors that shaped Hillary Clinton, and it is one of the factors that shapes how we respond to her. Whatever your feelings about Clinton herself, this election raises important questions about how we define leadership in this country, how we feel about women who try to claim it, flawed though they may be.
Also, with regards to Jacobim: I read it daily for a few months, and did an archive-binge at some point too. It's a very smart and thought-provoking magazine. But the ways in which it talks about Bernie stacking up to Hillary, or Bernie supporters stacking up to Hillary's, toe the line between "smart angry leftist" and "wordy angry misogynist" far too frequently for my comfort. I've been inclined to listen to Bernie supporters talk about how poorly they've been treated, and think several prominent pro-Hillary voices have been problematic as hell, but ultimately what I've seen is a lot of people who're very sharp and funny when it comes to putting down mainstream liberalism steadfastly refusing to accept that they, too, might be unfairly made into the butts of jokes, even though they're way cooler and funnier and cite hipper sources and shit. Which I've seen among Bernie supporters I know IRL, too: they are very smart and very determined not to accept that very smart people can disagree with them on issues and have a legitimate point.

I went into this primary thinking Bernie supporters understood Hillary supporters' perspective far better than was happening the other way around, but now I'm not too sure. I voted Bernie, and the last two weeks have given me a lot of cause to wonder if I pulled a dumb by doing so. (Except for the part where it didn't matter and Hillary swept my state anyway.)
posted by rorgy at 3:23 PM on June 1, 2016 [29 favorites]


TBH, Jimmy McMillan had a good platform.
posted by The Gaffer at 3:24 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I agree, but those voters are probably a lost cause for the Democrats anyway. And if Trump's performance convinces some other, more moderate Republicans that they just can't stomach pulling the lever for Trump, especially in swing states, it'd be encouraging.

The one friend from my conservative days who hasn't (yet! probably because she is hoping to save my blackened soul) blocked me on Facebook has stated that she intends to vote/write in a candidate TBD because she can't vote for Trump.

This makes me happy, though after 2004 I am incapable of unclenching till victory is declared and Trump goes back to his gilded troll cave.
posted by emjaybee at 3:27 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I do think that once the convention comes, Sanders concedes, and the nom is Clinton's she will do some outreach to the left. Clinton is a canny politician and I think she knows that she'll have to give the left something. You can't just ignore 45% or so of your voters.

To remind everyone again, over 80% of Sanders supporters said they would vote for Hillary. To vouchsafe that 80% will require a reminder of the liberal values Hillary has supported from the beginning plus some crucial pieces of the Sanders platform. That's doable. It's what Obama did in 2008.

That 10-20% of Sanders voters, so 4.5% - 9% of primary voters, would require more. They may not vote for Hillary, ever. They may only have voted for Sanders because they really did want the watch the world burn. They may not be worthwhile to invest in. Their outlet may be Johnson or Stein first, or perhaps Trump.

I don't know why people are freaking about all of this, honestly. The party will come together. Look at the 4-5 point bounce Trump got after he essentially clinched the nomination. Hillary will get hers after she clinches next week, and a lot of the complaints will melt away as the party rallies around their nominee.
posted by dw at 3:29 PM on June 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Can Trump get Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for him?: In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last month, 66 percent of Sanders supporters said they would vote for Hillary Clinton against Trump, while 17 percent would vote for him. Another 17 percent said they wouldn't vote for either candidate or were undecided.

But Trump has been saying he will get 40 percent of the Sanders vote.

posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:32 PM on June 1, 2016


Hey everybody guess who's a GamerGater and Sad Puppy!

(it's David French. thats who it is)
posted by rorgy at 3:34 PM on June 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


But Trump has been saying he will get 40 percent of the Sanders vote.

Trump has been saying a lot of things (often in direct conflict with each other), but that doesn't make his unsubstantiated claim that he'll get a significant portion of Sanders voters any more based in reality than the rest of his late-night infomercial ramblings. Don't panic.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:37 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


You don't even have to read this, it won't say anything we haven't said here (well maybe the part about the Amish) but I just liked the title.

I'm Voting for a Democrat in November Because I'm Not a Human Tire Fire
posted by emjaybee at 3:38 PM on June 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


Hey everybody guess who's a GamerGater and Sad Puppy!

(it's David French. thats who it is)


All the circles of the Venn diagram of awful crossing over to make a sort of anus shape.
posted by Artw at 3:40 PM on June 1, 2016 [40 favorites]


I'm Voting for a Democrat in November Because I'm Not a Human Tire Fire

Man, she is mad and on fire (but not a tire fire):
So get your fucking shit together once Hillary is the nominee, unless your ego and need to talk about stuff at your organic locally grown dinner parties for the next four years is greater than your respect for and compassion for the people who would suffer terribly under a GOP presidency and the Supreme Court for the next 10 to 40 years.
posted by Justinian at 3:44 PM on June 1, 2016 [22 favorites]


This dovetails into the thread about why "difficult" fictional female characters can't catch a break... the entire concept that Trump, " a man who spews hate and vulgarity, with no comprehension of how government works, can become presidentially plausible because he is magnetic" is a sign of America's totally self-destructive cultural sexism. There is nothing in his public persona that is "magnetic", quite the opposite... he embodies every terrible attribute of the five WORST bosses I ever had. I thought he was cast in "The Apprentice" BECAUSE he could play the role of AMERICA'S BAD BOSS. And now a scary high percentage of Americans want him to be President?!?

And it looks like Kristol has found in David French, a candidate with as much toxicity as Trump but without the annoying ego, which is, after all, what bothered him about the Donboy. Still, you could rely on Trump rubberstamping every awful thing a Republican Congress will send him because he'll be spending all his Oval Office effort on enriching himself, punishing his perceived enemies and making legal inconveniences like the Trump University case go away. And as long as he appoints a Scalia2 (or Scalia²) to the Supreme Court, of course, they'll let him.

Which is why I grudgingly accept Hillary Clinton and her Democratic Party with all its glaring sins. The Democrats are a corrupt party but the Republicans are a criminal enterprise that RICO should have broken up decades ago (and as such, a perfect match for Trump's criminal organizations).
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:47 PM on June 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


well maybe the part about the Amish

Speaking of the Plain people, there's now the Amish PAC which is a republican-aligned group trying to increase Amish voter turnout in Pennsylvania and Ohio. You've got to be pretty delusional to think you can convince the Amish to vote for Trump.
posted by peeedro at 3:49 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Barbara Boxer isn't keen on the "establishment Democrat" label Sanders likes to attach to all Clinton supporters.
posted by Superplin at 3:50 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Australia is having an election. The campaign is eight weeks long, and that's considered a long and tiresome election.

How long is it before ESPN starts covering the US elections like any other national competition? This is basically national sport at this point, people have their teams and their war-cries. They've got their colours and all-stars and upstarts and underdogs. And really, 'Super Tuesday' sounds like you should BE BE BE THERE THERE THERE ON SUPER TUESDAY! Cruz-or-lose vs the Orange Invective! ONLY AT THE BELTWAY SPEEDWAY!

Only problem is it's not a fucking game. It's not reality TV. It's reality, and it's going to effect real people.
posted by adept256 at 3:52 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


The Democrats are a corrupt party but the Republicans are a criminal enterprise that RICO should have broken up decades ago (and as such, a perfect match for Trump's criminal organizations).

You're seriously proposing that Democrats should have used the power of the state to forcibly destroy the only major opposition party?

You know what would be worse than a Trump presidency? That.
posted by Justinian at 3:53 PM on June 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Maybe instead of the conventions, they can put HRC, Trump, Bernie, French, and whoever else into the Big Brother house this summer, and we can have some time off.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:54 PM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


How long is it before ESPN starts covering the US elections like any other national competition?

Well, ESPN (ABC, Disney) bought FiveThirtyEight in 2013...
posted by zachlipton at 3:55 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


We can only hope that Gary will show up with a massive tray of pot brownies. Hillary and Donald giggling on the couch while time dilates around them? Now that's a reality show I'd watch.
posted by stolyarova at 3:58 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Of course Gary, Bernie and Jill would just end up sitting in the corner having super intense political discussions while Hillary and Donald got in a screaming fight until one of them pushed the other into the pool.
posted by stolyarova at 3:58 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Put Joe Biden in there, too. He'd have a good time.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:59 PM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


rorgy: "Hey everybody guess who's a GamerGater and Sad Puppy!"

Reading that article was like swimming through the sewer pipe in Shawshank Redemption
posted by double block and bleed at 4:00 PM on June 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Golden Trump-Pheasant/Fucked Chicken '16

Wait, I thought it was a yuuuuuuuge orange ortolan

HALF-EATEN COMBOVER ORTOLAN/FUCKED CHICKEN '16
posted by Existential Dread at 4:03 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Democrats are a corrupt party but the Republicans are a criminal enterprise that RICO should have broken up decades ago (and as such, a perfect match for Trump's criminal organizations)...

You're seriously proposing that Democrats should have used the power of the state to forcibly destroy the only major opposition party?
You know what would be worse than a Trump presidency? That.


In a thread full of hyperbole and invective, why would you single out this one obviously exaggerated bit of grousing to direct your high dudgeon against?
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:09 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Reading that article was like swimming through the sewer pipe in Shawshank Redemption

Yeah, but that eventually led to freedom and quality beach time between friends, whereas this particular tunnel just leads to deeper, fouler shit. Spoiler alert.
posted by Timmoy Daen at 4:10 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


You're seriously proposing that Democrats should have used the power of the state to forcibly destroy the only major opposition party?
No, I'm proposing they use the Laws of the Land to help give America a partially-honest conservative party.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:11 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


it's high time we stopped letting 1% of the comments get 99% of the dudgeon. there is enough to redistribute fairly
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:11 PM on June 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


MAKE DUDGEON GREAT AGAIN
posted by stolyarova at 4:12 PM on June 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


guess what? the dudgeon just got ten feet higher
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:12 PM on June 1, 2016 [22 favorites]


No, I'm proposing they use the Laws of the Land to help give America a partially-honest conservative party.

Look, let's not ask for things that we've never had here.
posted by delfin at 4:13 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Meanwhile, Thomas Burr, the president of the National Press Club, denounces Trump for his treatment of the press:
“Donald Trump misunderstands—or, more likely, simply opposes--the role a free press plays in a democratic society,” said Thomas Burr, the National Press Club president. “Reporters are supposed to hold public figures accountable. Any American political candidate who attacks the press for doing its job is campaigning in the wrong country. In the United States, under our Constitution, a free press is a check on politicians of all parties.”

“If we are to demand that other countries respect the tradition of a free press we must also practice that here at home,” Burr added.
posted by stolyarova at 4:15 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


So when is he suing Burr?
posted by adept256 at 4:17 PM on June 1, 2016


Man I can't wait until they finally build a wall around the dudgeon and keep out all those dirty illegal emotions
posted by item at 4:17 PM on June 1, 2016


Given the comparisons frequently made to Andrew Jackson, I'd expect pistols on the green at dawn.
posted by stolyarova at 4:18 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think Burr should challenge him to a duel
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:18 PM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Weehawken, dawn. Pistols, drawn.
posted by Superplin at 4:20 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


The last duel involving a Burr didn't end well for him.
posted by delfin at 4:20 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I hear wailing in the streets....
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:22 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


And. for the record, the last time I voted for a Republican was 1996, because I considered Bob Dole more honest than Bill Clinton (still, I was concerned he wouldn't stand up to the reprehensible newt Gingrich, but I needn't have worried, Clinton didn't either).

And I misread 'dudgeon' as 'dungeon' and thought... hey, my apartment's not that bad!
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:22 PM on June 1, 2016


Metafilter Katamari thread consumes Election 2016 and Hamilton....next comes the giant mashups thread
posted by Existential Dread at 4:24 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


*pukes rainbow*
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:24 PM on June 1, 2016


Trump is a bully, and therefore a coward. He'd worm out of a duel faster than Flashman.
posted by adept256 at 4:24 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


he can't duel because he's being audited
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:27 PM on June 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


How high's the dudgeon, Mama?
Well it's ten feet high and risin'
How high's the dudgeon, Papa?
She said it's ten feet high and risin'
posted by eclectist at 4:28 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]




The whole AIDS activist flop seems like such a rookie mistake. I'm far from plugged into that community, but even I, with an tangential grasp on the issues, know about the many longstanding ugly disputes between AHF and Michael Weinstein vs. literally everybody else. Not jumping into that disaster area because you'll come out of it having pleased nobody should be common sense to someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of the players involved.
posted by zachlipton at 4:42 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maybe I'm missing something, but if Kristol wants a non-Trump conservative third-party standard-bearer, why is he crowning a creepy obscurity when the Libertarians have put together a decent ticket?

Probably 'cause the Libertarians don't want to bomb Iran to rubble.
posted by octothorpe at 4:50 PM on June 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Clinton and Trump have both been public figures since the '80s and one of the reasons they have high disapproval ratings is that they have well-defined personas. My theory is that as the election goes on and people take a closer look at them and think of either of them becoming president, they'll like Clinton more and they'll like Trump less. She's not very good at speeches, but she can be charming in smaller settings. He's going from being seen as a cartoonish blowhard to a dangerous lunatic.

If she can keep her cool during the debates like she did at the Benghazi hearing and can provoke him into blowing his top it would be a defining moment in the election. If I were on her staff I'd time some provocative shot at him the day of the first debate that she can casually allude to during the debate.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:55 PM on June 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Clinton's debate rehearsals are gonna be interesting. Wonder who's gonna play Trump.
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:06 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


If Chris Farley were still alive...
posted by dersins at 5:09 PM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


...and I live in a VAN down by the RIVER.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:12 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Alec Baldwin would make a good stand-in for Trump.
posted by peeedro at 5:16 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


omg of course Bill is going to want to play Trump
posted by sallybrown at 5:16 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'd suggest Jon Lovitz in character as "Tommy Flanagan, The Pathological Liar"
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:17 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


prize bull octorok: "Wonder who's gonna play Trump."

Farley? Baldwin? Lovitz? C'mon, it's gotta be Hammond or bust.
posted by mhum at 5:23 PM on June 1, 2016


omg of course Bill is going to want to play Trump

I'd agree except that whoever plays Trump is going to have to utter a lot of disgusting Lewinsky-scandal 'zingers' (because you know he's gonna assuming he shows up to a debate), which would be... extra awkward in that scenario.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 5:26 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hillary's going to need to be prepared for extreme levels of awkward, and Bill is sufficiently shameless to provide them.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:29 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


"Wonder who's gonna play Trump."

Farley? Baldwin? Lovitz? C'mon, it's gotta be Hammond or bust.


Anthony Atamanuik
posted by Atom Eyes at 5:29 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wonder who's gonna play Trump.

They should just blast a foghorn at her at intervals.
posted by Artw at 5:34 PM on June 1, 2016 [33 favorites]




Hey, whatever happened to Deez Nuts?
I think he's been busy with his sophomore year of high school. Summer vacation just started, though, so maybe he'll be back in time for the general election. You can still get a Deez Nuts t-shirt, if you're so inclined.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:44 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Got my sample primary ballot (NJ) in the mail today. I was honestly shocked- it seemed like June 7th was never going to come!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:50 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


David French: both GamerGater, and gamer. (guess which game. I dare you to.)
posted by Apocryphon at 5:51 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Professor Layton!
posted by Going To Maine at 6:01 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Aww man. I was wrong.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:01 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Here are the notes compiled by the 19 activists who attended the meeting with Senator Sanders last week.

Christ on a fucking crutch, he's disappointing there.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:26 PM on June 1, 2016


He gets really disappointing any time you get him off his pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. I like his politics way more than Hillary's, but he's just awful at being a presidential candidate. It's no surprise to me that he lost the primary.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:38 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Eh, pie-in-the-sky is the wrong phrase, because it implies the things he wants are unachieveable, which I don't think is actually true. I think I meant something more like "when you get him off-message".
posted by tobascodagama at 6:46 PM on June 1, 2016


With regard to the things he wants being achievable, one of the things that has bothered me is that Sanders' "revolution" rhetoric makes "let's adopt some social welfare programs that are, in various forms, largely successful and popular in Canada and a number of European countries" sound much more dramatic and revolutionary than it ought to be. I'm not convinced any of it is achievable here given the size of the "get the government out of my Medicare" crowd, but making hyping these proposals up as a wide-eyed revolutionary scheme makes it harder to convince the masses that this stuff is actually pretty common among industrialized nations and it's not so scary or dangerous.
posted by zachlipton at 6:57 PM on June 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


I thought a big part of his shtick was that those things were not at all radical.

I think he's just inflexible not a very good campaigner.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:59 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


The language Sanders uses is way too cranked up in general. Another negative effect of putting things in "revolutionary" terms is that his less mature supporters develop that Tea Party style suspicion of compromise, as if trying to reach actual solutions for things with people who might disagree is a ticket for shillville. Also, someone needs to make him put money in a swear jar every time he calls something or someone "the establishment" to deflect criticism. As if the first thing a successful revolution needs to do isn't rebuilding "the establishment."
posted by EatTheWeak at 7:03 PM on June 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


but making hyping these proposals up as a wide-eyed revolutionary scheme makes it harder to convince the masses that this stuff is actually pretty common among industrialized nations and it's not so scary or dangerous.

Yeah, those in other civilised nations are looking at you weird, America. We've done the welfare thing, the education thing, the health thing. Here in Australia we even banned guns. It's actually really nice here. What's abnormal is these weird greedlord doomsayers amoung you claiming that what other countries have been doing for generations are the fast road to hell. Look around! It's not hell!
posted by adept256 at 7:10 PM on June 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Here are the notes compiled by the 19 activists who attended the meeting with Senator Sanders last week.

Are they available anywhere outside of Dropbox? I deleted my account a while ago.
posted by happyroach at 7:11 PM on June 1, 2016


Australia banned guns. Australia is full of spiders. Coincidence?
posted by double block and bleed at 7:12 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Pretty sure Australia is actually made of spiders.
posted by Artw at 7:13 PM on June 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


doomsayers amoung you claiming that what other countries have been doing for generations are the fast road to hell. Look around! It's not hell!

Yeah, there is always talk about how if we do X we'll be like Europe or something and thats supposed to be scary.

Those saying these things often know better, but its in their interest to convince people. Many/most Americans have never actually been to these places, though, so it's easier to convince them that they are horrible places for some reason. (And they don't go there for totally legitimate reasons, like no vacation time, its far away/expensive, etc).
posted by thefoxgod at 7:15 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Are they available anywhere outside of Dropbox? I deleted my account a while ago.

no account needed, just dismiss the login box.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:18 PM on June 1, 2016


They've been unshakably convinced that Europeans and others live in nanny states with governments that control everything they do and tax them into submission.
posted by double block and bleed at 7:20 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think he's just inflexible not a very good campaigner.

that's a hard argument to make given how well he has done. if anything his success has been more surprising than Trump's, given how little name recognition he started with.

but, if he is not that great of a candidate, then what does that say about Hillary?
posted by ennui.bz at 7:23 PM on June 1, 2016


but, if he is not that great of a candidate, then what does that say about Hillary?

It says she's beating him.
posted by duffell at 7:25 PM on June 1, 2016 [27 favorites]


but, if he is not that great of a candidate, then what does that say about Hillary?

Is this a rhetorical question where we're supposed to pretend that men and women are equal and since the founding of the nation there has been equitable treatment and representation of men and women in political leadership and gender has no impact on popular perception of these two candidates? Because I would hate to be accused of playing the woman card.
posted by Salamandrous at 7:28 PM on June 1, 2016 [30 favorites]


Also, many things the US federal government does are designed to be horrible. Post offices are unpleasant, unhappy places (mostly because Congress does everything in its power to make them terrible.) Social security offices are similarly awful. People are afraid of getting their healthcare from the same people who don't seem to give a shit when or even if your letter will arrive, forgetting that the real answers to those are "soon" and "almost certainly".
posted by double block and bleed at 7:29 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Australia banned guns.
Considering how many animals in Australia can kill you (yes, include the cuddly koalas in that list), it's just wise that they try to keep 'other people' off that list.

Yeah, those in other civilised nations are looking at you weird, America.
Well, the one with very homogeneous populations, who don't have those "others" who don't deserve all the good stuff. And the current flood of very-Islamic-looking refugess is bringing out the American in many of those countries.

if he is not that great of a candidate, then what does that say about Hillary?
He has the right core message for our troubled times. Hillary has done amazingly well WITHOUT being able to be a "revolutionary" candidate. Remember when we thought this campaign would shake out into a snoozefest between Another Clinton and Another Bush? Now Jeb, with as much 'insider' support as Hillary, showed how NOT to be an establishment candidate in an "anti-establishment" year.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:29 PM on June 1, 2016


oh good let us continue to argue about which democratic candidate is the worst
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:30 PM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]




He's a very good populist campaigner--as is Trump. He's alarmingly short on specifics to achieve his stated goals--as is Trump.

They are not the same, at all, in the goals they wish to reach. Their methodology, and the rhetoric of many supporters, is disturbingly similar. This is not some false equivalence, both sides are the same, nothing like that; voting for a literal pile of shit over Trump is the only intelligent, not to mention ethical, thing to do, and should Sanders somehow gain the nomination I would hope that Clinton supporters would line up behind him the same way his supporters are being asked to do for her. The methods they employ are disturbingly similar, however: a lot of rhetoric, a lot of total inability to articulate concrete steps to reach those goals (Sanders speaking to AIDS activists, responses to questions in the NYT interview, responses in his Rolling Stone interview), a lot of claiming corruption when it's solely not knowing about (or saying they don't know about) how the process actually works, a lot of hypocrisy (Sanders' "superdelegates are bad! respect the voters! uhhhh superdelegates are good! they must ignore the majority of the voters and come to us!").

It's really worrisome, and while I buy the math, there are a lot of similarities between the Gore/Bush race (policy vs populism) and the upcoming Clinton/Trump.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:31 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also, many things the federal government does are designed to be horrible. Post offices are unpleasant, unhappy places (mostly because Congress does everything in its power to make it terrible.)

Yeah, this is a self-reinforcing cycle basically. And the Republicans in particular have been happy to make government suck and then argue that "See? Government is terrible!" despite the fact that its been intentionally hamstrung by them.

The difference between going to government offices/functions in Japan and America has been very striking to my wife and I. She didn't get why Americans hate such places (Post Office, DMV, etc) until she had experienced it for herself, because it doesn't have to be like that.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:33 PM on June 1, 2016 [14 favorites]



but, if he is not that great of a candidate, then what does that say about Hillary?

It says she's beating him.


do you know how much of a joke professional political people consider people like Sanders to be? there's no way an elderly Jewish socialist from Vermont should be within 20 points of Clinton, much less splitting primaries 50/50.

so, either he's actually a sneakily good campaigner, or Hillary has real problems.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:33 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders is a fine campaigner, specially to people who feel left out of the system that Clinton champions.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:34 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


That website doesn't work on my phone, what video game does he play? Is it CoD?
posted by clorox at 7:35 PM on June 1, 2016


I don't think the problem is with campaign ability, its that there is a real divide in the Democratic party. Hopefully, however, it will be obvious to everyone that despite that division, Trump is such a threat to America that we will work together to defeat him, and then continue the debate within the party.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:36 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


WoW
posted by double block and bleed at 7:36 PM on June 1, 2016


Sanders ratchets up attacks on Democrats (msnbc)
This was fun to watch.
Jeff Weaver gets chewed up pretty good by Barney Frank and Chris Matthews.
Weaver manages to smirk all the way through.
posted by dougzilla at 7:40 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Post offices are unpleasant, unhappy places. Social security offices are similarly awful.
I must be a total outlier, because the bureaucracies I've had the most hassle with are PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT organizations. Seriously, DMV? Slow but never a hassle. Banks and Retail Customer Service counters? Slow AND hassle. These government entities must see me coming and think "white male, better up our game." I get pretty good home delivery from the USPS as well as UPS and FedEx, but when one of those private carriers use a service that hands off to the PS for the last mile (or last 100 miles), those are the only times in the last 10 years I've received my package a day BEFORE promised. Yep, I'm a weird case.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:40 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


professional political people also said Trump wouldn't win the Republican nomination so there you go
posted by yhbc at 7:41 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


so, either he's actually a sneakily good campaigner, or Hillary has real problems

Who cares? The choices are between a nakedly fascist racist misogynist dumpster fire and a flawed human being. All of this blah blah blah ignores the very real world effects for a whole lot of people--including the economic and military ramifications worldwide of a Trump presidency--for doing anything but voting for the D nominee. If that nominee is an actual garbage fire, they'd still be better than Trump.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:41 PM on June 1, 2016 [27 favorites]


I don't think it says much about HRC's vulnerability or not that Sanders came so close to winning. First, when there are really only two candidates in an election, odds are that will split pretty close unless one candidate is really really out there. Second, he's not actually that inept. Have you seen Trump? Have you seen some of the gaffes every candidate ever makes? Contrariwise, the common "wisdom" is that Clinton's 2008 campaign was really inept in a bunch of ways. Does that mean it was evidence that Obama was a risky general election candidate? Or maybe it could be just that primaries prioritize and reward different styles of campaigns than general elections in the US.
posted by R343L at 7:43 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]



He's a very good populist campaigner--as is Trump. He's alarmingly short on specifics to achieve his stated goals--as is Trump.


I actually think Bernie is a terrible populist campaigner. if he had been able to address working people's issues in real and concrete ways, and/or promise to bring to justice the huge class of "white collar" criminals, like Trump, who run this country, I think he would be the nominee.

but, Clinton has showed herself to be out of touch with the Democratic base. she won the contest on a combination of name recognition, appealing to older, more conservative dems, and maintaining her support in the black community. that's not an appealing profile going into the general contest.

I'm really not a Bernie partisan. I'm just hoping he manages to split the party badly enough that the Clintons can't complete their project of remaking the party as the party of big business and socially tolerant professionals.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:51 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


What's abnormal is these weird greedlord doomsayers amoung you claiming that what other countries have been doing for generations are the fast road to hell. Look around! It's not hell!

Well sure, but an all-time high of 38% of Americans have passports and a decent number of them use them to travel to Canada, Mexico, and adjacent islands. If you've never been to Europe and just rely on skimming major American news media, Europe is a collection of stereotypes: filled with strikes, stupid people who drink wine and take naps all day, scary refugees causing chaos and crime everywhere, economies collapsing, and whatever the heck a Brexit is (it's ok, Trump doesn't know either). Australia is rarely considered unless there's an animal-related video on YouTube the news can rip off.

Honestly, very few Americans know how these systems work in other countries. To the extent we know anything about them, it usually involves sky-high taxes and long waits for health care during which lovable grandmothers die.

And as thefoxgod points out, the Republicans would try to sabotage these systems even if we had them, just as they've done with Obamacare.
posted by zachlipton at 7:54 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]



but, Clinton has showed herself to be out of touch with the Democratic base. she won the contest on a combination of name recognition, appealing to older, more conservative dems, and maintaining her support in the black community


She doesn't appear out of touch with the base at all. She's winning the nomination, and did very well in places with closed Democratic primaries.

Also, I'm really tired of older people and black people who voted for Hillary getting dismissed. Especially with regard to the black community, it's just really appalling to claim they're not part of the Democratic base.
posted by zutalors! at 7:55 PM on June 1, 2016 [60 favorites]


I'm really not a Bernie partisan. I'm just hoping he manages to split the party badly enough that the Clintons can't complete their project of remaking the party as the party of big business and socially tolerant professionals.

If he splits the party that hard, Clinton loses. Imagine, for a moment, life under a Trump regime (with Congress looking the way it is) for: women, queer people, trans people, poor people, immigrants, Muslims, people of colour, non-Christians.

'Burn it all down' never, ever takes into account the people who get burned.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:57 PM on June 1, 2016 [42 favorites]


Oh is this where the current concern trolling about Hillary's electability is now? Oh boy fun as if I don't get a ton of that on DailyKos and let's be honest r/politics is a dumpster fire where trolls are trolling trolls trolling trolls.

The simple reality is that we are going to have a Hillary vs Trump election and the libertarian and green party candidates aren't going to do shit to actually register in the end result because they have no money and next to no visibility.

Hillary is already developing a massive advantage over Trump in terms of the fundamentals as she's polling ahead of him despite Trump getting a nomination bounce and Hillary still having to deal with the Bernie or Bust element that are constantly crying about how the race was stolen.

Add to that the enviable starting point any Democrat has in regards to the electoral college where Trump basically has to sweep battleground states to win. This is before you even bring in the shit numbers that Trump has with Latino and women voters. Romney got blown out and he polled way better among Latinos than Trump does. Factor in the declining demographic population of white older men and the increasing percentage of minority voters and not even the most egregious voter screening process is going to make much of a difference.

Further we are learning that Trump's campaign is basically broke right now and the RNC can't come to his aid yet whereas Clinton has managed to stockpile a massive warchest despite the surprising strength of Sanders.

Basically Trump is begging for Super PAC money right now because he's fucked on hard money until after the convention and his fundraising has been anemic. He needs someone like Adelson to go all in and start buying ads because not even the insane amount of free coverage he gets on Fox and MSNBC is keeping the narrative from turning increasingly anti-trump.

Yeah there are a fuckton of GamerGate style Trump Trolls active right now but once he starts getting his ass kicked news cycle after news cycle they'll dump him quick because he'll look weak and they can't support someone that doesn't look Alpha anymore.
posted by vuron at 7:57 PM on June 1, 2016 [26 favorites]



Who cares? The choices are between a nakedly fascist racist misogynist dumpster fire and a flawed human being. All of this blah blah blah ignores the very real world effects for a whole lot of people--including the economic and military ramifications worldwide of a Trump presidency--for doing anything but voting for the D nominee. If that nominee is an actual garbage fire, they'd still be better than Trump.


but that is a terrifying basis for a general election campaign. given how unpopular Trump is, if she can't lay out a positive case for herself, she's going to start out as a lame duck president with a fascist dominated congress.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:58 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


but, Clinton has showed herself to be out of touch with the Democratic base. she won the contest on a combination of name recognition, appealing to older, more conservative dems, and maintaining her support in the black community.
It boggles my mind that it is 2016 and I still have to point out that "the black community" is not something that is separate from "the Democratic base."
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:59 PM on June 1, 2016 [60 favorites]


Guys, this threat is giving me the shakes. There is nothing more frightening and existentially devastating than the fact that this guy has some non-zero chance of becoming president. Seriously, I wouldn't let this guy be safety officer of a grade-school playground.
posted by newdaddy at 8:00 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Clinton has showed herself to be out of touch with the Democratic base...maintaining her support in the black community. that's not an appealing profile going into the general contest.

The idea that 'the Democratic base' and 'the black community' are two non-overlapping Venn circles that are wholly separate, rather that intermingled, is incorrect. That framing is simply wrong.
posted by cjelli at 8:01 PM on June 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


she won the contest on a combination of name recognition, appealing to older, more conservative dems, and maintaining her support in the black community

She's winning much more heavily among registered Democrats than Bernie is, so I don't know where this idea comes from. A lot of Bernie's support is coming from independents (I'm not discounting that support, but the idea that Clinton doesn't have the support of the Democratic base is just not supported by the evidence).

She's also winning women, people over 30, etc.

I mean, she's winning among most groups which isn't surprising since she has a lot more votes than Sanders...
posted by thefoxgod at 8:03 PM on June 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


stupid people who drink wine and take naps all day

those are very smart people lbr

but that is a terrifying basis for a general election campaign. given how unpopular Trump is, if she can't lay out a positive case for herself, she's going to start out as a lame duck president with a fascist dominated congress.

Simple positive case: NOT TRUMP.

Here's the rest of her positive case.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:03 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


But fundamentally Clinton has had 2 huge bases in the primary. She's winning women 2:1 over Sanders, and non-whites 71 to 28. Both of those groups are core parts of the Democratic base.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:05 PM on June 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


a fascist dominated congress

In a world with Trump, calling typical Republican Congresspeople fascists is dumb. Cowards, sure.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:08 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


yeah, the whole notion that there's a Democratic base, and then separate from that there's just a bunch of dumb women and minorities that don't know what's good for them... that's not a good look, son.
posted by palomar at 8:08 PM on June 1, 2016 [32 favorites]


Or maybe it could be just that primaries prioritize and reward different styles of campaigns than general elections in the US.

This has certainly always been true.

but, Clinton has showed herself to be out of touch with the Democratic base. she won the contest on a combination of name recognition, appealing to older, more conservative dems, and maintaining her support in the black community

In what world are "more conservative dems" (which means, in the context of Sanders' insurgency, liberals) and African-American voters not part of the base of the Democratic Party?

Edit: all hail the foxgod, who got there before me.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:10 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


It boggles my mind that it is 2016 and I still have to point out that "the black community" is not something that is separate from "the Democratic base."

I don't know. They're not some homogenous voting bloc? Herman Cain and Ben Carson spring to mind. I don't think "the black community" are some unified borg hive mind.
posted by adept256 at 8:10 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Herman Cain and Ben Carson spring to mind.

Yes, those are two black people who are not Democrats. That doesn't change the fact that Democrats get a lot of votes (and organizing) from black people.
posted by zutalors! at 8:14 PM on June 1, 2016 [11 favorites]




Come on. Herman Cain or Ben Carson would never have gotten 50% of black votes in the general election.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:16 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


David French sounds like a walking vapor pen so far, not the right wing third party spoiler I need to enter this race for the sake of my blood pressure. Another dynamite Bill Kristol plan of solid gold! I need to admit that I'm a little/lot disappointed that Romney didn't ride to the rescue.

Remember that part in the Rocketeer where the mobsters find out they've been in a conspiracy with Nazis for the whole movie, so the mob boss turns on them immediately and the good guys are like "waaat? you're a crook!" and the he says "hell yeah I am but I'm still an American" and then the mob and the FBI fight the Nazis together and it's awesome? God, turns like that have choked me up since I was a kid - when the bad guys and the good guys set that shit aside to deal with the even worse bad guys.

I'd have a lot of unkind words from 2012 to take back if Mitt did his nation the service of stopping Trump. I've never felt warmer towards him than that span of time where I really thought he might have turned this election into the third act of the Rocketeer. Or the end of Spider-Man 2, where Mitt is Dock Ock and Spider-Man is Hillary and the giant orange time bomb is everyone's problem.
posted by EatTheWeak at 8:17 PM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I doubt they could get 50% of the vote if they were the last two people on Earth.
posted by adept256 at 8:19 PM on June 1, 2016


They're not some homogenous voting bloc?

While it's technically correct (the best kind of correct!) that all African-Americans do not vote Democratic, it is also true that they are the most homogenous large voting bloc. 95% is about as homogenous as it gets in the messy real world.
posted by Justinian at 8:19 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


It boggles my mind that it is 2016 and I still have to point out that "the black community" is not something that is separate from "the Democratic base.

y'all are aggressively misreading my point, which is again, the primary should never have been this close for Clinton. This was her opportunity to make a winning appeal to the "liberal" base of the party. the way the primary split young vs. old is really pretty striking and shows she is out of touch with where the party is moving. even in the black community, where she held on to the most support (remember that Bernie started out with single digit support among all segments of a party he doesn't belong to), the black youth vote swung the most toward Bernie.

but the thing is that this is the most "liberal" Clinton is going to be this election. she will now be running towards the "moderate" independent vote.

but you know, whatever, good luck scaring people into voting for her.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:19 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Post offices are unpleasant, unhappy places ...

The difference between going to government offices/functions in Japan and America has been very striking to my wife and I.


OMG, I know it's a little bit off topic, but you guys. This one time my wife and I were in Korea and we wanted to get a special gift for my stamp-collecting, never-left-North-America mom, so we went to the main head post office in Seoul. We took a number, and when they called us up to the desk and we said we were interested in the collectors' stamps from the display case, they seriously escorted us behind the counter into a private room in the back and showed us a huge selection of their collections, and sat there and offered to answer our questions for basically as long as we wanted.

At the damn post office! It was nuts! In a real, major, pointedly non-communist industrial economy. Government services don't have to suck. It's absolutely a choice.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 8:21 PM on June 1, 2016 [27 favorites]


The reality is that Clinton is winning because she's created a winning coalition that comprises a plurality of the modern Democratic party.

Her dominance has been driven by dramatically outperforming Bernie among several key demographics.

Older Voters- Boomers still have massive numbers and significant economic power. They also seem to be less sold by the allure of Revolution because a lot of them basically want to be able to retire in the next decade.

African-Americans- this has been an incredible loyal and reliable demographic block for decades and while their power has diminished some on the national level they still are a dominant force in many states. There also tends to be a certain degree of skepticism regarding revolution because AAs often don't do so well in those situations plus Hillary is explicitly running on the idea of building upon the foundations that Obama created.

Latino voters- In many states this is the new kingmaker demographic although turnout still tends to lag behind but big turnout by first time Latino voters could definitely seal the deal for Clinton and possibly result in a wave election.

So her "weakness" has largely been based upon weakness among rural Democrats (who are typically completely overshadowed by rural Republicans) and among younger cohorts. While I totally agree that Millenials are the future of the Democratic party I'm not sure that they are as universally negative on Clinton as we would be led to believe by the current narrative. Yes they are facing a great deal of economic anxiety and uncertainty and the current progressive messaging by the Sanders campaign has won a lot of voters over it's not entirely clear that the number of Bernie of Bust people is really as high as some pundits would have us believe.

The other tendency is to say that Clinton is weak among Independents but when push comes to shove the majority of Independents are firmly lean Republican or lean Democrat and the number of truly neutral independent voters is actually pretty small and it's not entirely clear that they tend to vote in large numbers either.

The result is that I think a lot of words have been said about Hillary's GE weaknesses but honestly those tend to be based upon really shaky arguments built around really shaky data points. Sanders needs to continue to prop up those arguments because otherwise his fundraising and poll numbers will crater even more than they already have.

In the meantime I really could care less about whether Sanders stays in the race. Honestly he's a completely spent force and Hillary is spending the absolute minimum amount of resources to counter his increasingly desperate hail mary plays. I feel kind of sad because I think he's squandering a good deal of good will that he would've been able to walk away with if he basically quit attacking Hillary and focused most of his anger at Trump but the constant narrative of the nomination being rigged has basically eroded most of that good will and I see him being less of an elder statesman and more of a old crank that is increasingly marginalized going forward. But I'm not sure that he was ever really the right person to be the standard bearer for Progressives moving forward. Yes he's generally very Progressive but he lacks he level of nuance that I think many are looking for in a progressive messiah.
posted by vuron at 8:22 PM on June 1, 2016 [37 favorites]


ennui.bz, what people are taking issue with is the idea that she isn't appealing to the base of the party. You're wrong about that. Hillary Clinton is winning the Democratic party's base. It's young people who are not strongly affiliated with the Democratic party where she is having issues.

But the base of the Democratic party is pretty rock solid for Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 8:22 PM on June 1, 2016 [32 favorites]


it's not entirely clear that the number of Bernie of Bust people is really as high as some pundits would have us believe

I expect there are about as many of them as there were PUMAs in 2008. Maybe even fewer.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:24 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


There's 2 candidates at this point. [Bernie is not a realistic possibility. Just not. Please accept that.]

Hilary has endured hours and hours of congressional inquiry and carried herself with dignity.

I honestly don't know how anyone can watch how Donald Trump has behaved in response to soft-gloved journalistic inquiry [most recently regarding the veterans' fundraising], and think "yeah, that's my guy."



Supreme court nominations.
Obamacare (flawed as it is).
LGBT rights.
Progressive taxation (minimal as it is).

Forget the damned in-fighting. Trump needs to be defeated.

You don't have to be a cheerleader, but stop with the back stabbing.
posted by yesster at 8:26 PM on June 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


I see him being less of an elder statesman and more of a old crank that is increasingly marginalized going forward. But I'm not sure that he was ever really the right person to be the standard bearer for Progressives moving forward. Yes he's generally very Progressive but he lacks he level of nuance that I think many are looking for in a progressive messiah.

This is exactly how I felt when I considered supporting him in February and decided not to. That was a pretty lonely time to consider yourself progressive and not want to support Sanders' campaign, but not so much these days.
posted by zutalors! at 8:27 PM on June 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


but you know, whatever, good luck scaring people into voting for her.

If you're not terrified by the notion of a Trump presidency, I don't know what to tell you.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:29 PM on June 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


A thing I've noticed on my Facebook feed is that Bernie-or-Busters often seem to feel that a majority of Democratic voters disagreeing with them = a conspiracy. When it turns out your opinion is in the minority, paranoia is not a good answer.

When the Ron Paul 2012 people (myself included) attempted to take over the state-level conventions, we knew that we were going belly-to-belly with the mass of the Republican beast. We were a minority trying to make the Rs better from the inside. Didn't work, as Trump has clearly demonstrated.
posted by stolyarova at 8:29 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


This is exactly how I felt when I considered supporting him in February and decided not to. That was a pretty lonely time to consider yourself progressive and not want to support Sanders' campaign, but not so much these days.

For the first time in nearly six months, I actually felt safe posting my own political opinions on my own Facebook page today without fearing that someone would come shit all over me for not being in the tank for their candidate. It was refreshing.
posted by palomar at 8:33 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Obama today: "We can't afford to weaken Social Security, we should be strengthening Social Security. And not only do we need to strengthen its long term health, it's time we finally made Social Security more generous and increased its benefits so today's retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they have earned."

That's an amazing turnaround from 2011 when Obama was prepared to cut Social Security as part of his Grand Bargain to balance the budget. There has been a gradual shift in the electorate over recent years. Things look a lot different than when Obama took office eight years ago.

The Great Recession and Occupy Wall Street made it possible to discuss issues that were unthinkable a few years ago. I remember Elizabeth Warren being one of the first prominent politicians to say we needed to increase Social Security when for years all anyone has been talking about is how we have to cut it. The ocean liner is beginning to bend to a new course.
posted by JackFlash at 8:34 PM on June 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


Actually I don't think Clinton really has to run much if any towards the center in regards to the General Election. She's going to lose the majority of Republicans and Republican leaners (although I suspect that more than a few Republican women will say they will voter Trump and end up voting for Hillary in November).

Hillary will win virtually all of the actual Democrats because Trump is fucking insane and she'll win a large percentage of the lean democrat independents because while watching Trump for an election might be funny most people seem to realize he'd be an awful awful President.

I'll be honest the Green party isn't going to win over that many Bernie supporters because Stein just isn't a particularly charismatic leader and most of the lolbertarians will be supporting Trump anyway.

So what it's really coming down to is that this is probably going to be a base election which Democrats have a built in advantage with because of the demographics and Trump's only real way to victory largely depends on lean Democrat voters staying home while maintaining big turnout among lean Republican Independents. I'd say it has a non-Zero chance of being a successful strategy but I certainly wouldn't bet money on it and I think the betting markets tend to be showing a consensus that the deck is stacked against Trump already and the Democrats have only barely begun to pound on him.

This is why the big money backers on the Republican side are refusing to support a useless effort to prop up the Donald while going crazy on down ballot races because they can afford to lose the White House if they can maintain a lock on Congress because gridlock = status quo and the status quo supports conservative goals.
posted by vuron at 8:37 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


most of the lolbertarians will be supporting Trump anyway

Why would you think this? Libertarianism is antithetical to authoritarianism and Trump is the most authoritarian candidate in living memory.
posted by stolyarova at 8:38 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


For the first time in nearly six months, I actually felt safe posting my own political opinions on my own Facebook page today without fearing that someone would come shit all over me for not being in the tank for their candidate. It was refreshing.

Oh man, mine ain't there yet. The guy who I found out was a gamergater last time is still copy-pasting half a dozen shouty links under everything he disagrees with. I don't get what the endgame is with him - like the last twelve ~!!$HILLARY!!~ links he brick-posted on me didn't change anything, but maybe this next three will. Guess I'll just hold off a little longer on posting anything critical of Sanders or positive about Clinton until oh wait I think I just figured out what he's trying to do.
posted by EatTheWeak at 8:40 PM on June 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


Also FWIW many prominent libertarians (Jeffrey Tucker, Steve Horwitz, Sanford Ikeda etc.) agree that Clinton is substantially less dangerous than Trump, even if they disagree with her on economics. Jeff Tucker was calling Trump a fascist a year ago and got mocked for it at the time.
posted by stolyarova at 8:44 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Libertarianism is antithetical to authoritarianism

No, libertarianism (as actually practiced--see the difference between Commnunism as theorized and as actually practiced) is all about authoritarianism. It just changes who's in charge, and is much more nakedly about money=power.

That's pretty Trumpian.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:44 PM on June 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Paul Berman in Tablet Magazine asks
Bernie and Hillary: Why Not Join Forces?
A ghostly lesson from the Socialist past for Sanders and the Democratic party

A century ago, when your hero Eugene V. Debs was the Socialist Party’s perennial presidential candidate, a good many people supported him and the Socialist Party as a whole because they wanted big social reforms on behalf of the American working class, and they wanted those reforms to conform to the latest word in social science. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in those days were offering much along those lines. And so, people voted Socialist because politically they were homeless. [...]
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:45 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think Libertarians who are registered Libertarians and not angry MRA types who have taken up the mantle because "Angry MRA Type" is not a political party will vote for Gary Johnson.
posted by Tevin at 8:45 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


this is the most "liberal" Clinton is going to be this election. she will now be running towards the "moderate" independent vote.

Clinton is liberal. She's not a scare-quotes liberal; she's to the left of a lot of the country. Her public voting record in the Senate, her long political history, as well as her own current campaign and platform, make it very, very clear that she isn't, what, pretending to be liberal?

Sanders is certainly yet farther to the left than her on many issues, but that doesn't make her magically a conservative.
posted by cjelli at 8:45 PM on June 1, 2016 [42 favorites]


In practice, the vast majority of libertarian economists are horrified by (and deeply opposed to) Donald Trump because he's a protectionist and a racist. Free trade and free movement are essential to libertarianism.
posted by stolyarova at 8:47 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Post offices are unpleasant, unhappy places

Depends. The post office around here all right, the DMV is pretty painless. Los Angeles on the other hand will bring you to tears.
posted by bongo_x at 8:48 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah Obama tried to be all post-Partisan and mister nice Black President and after about 10 zillion Lucy moving the football away from Charlie Brown stunts it seems that Obama has gotten wise to the Republican gameplan and is focusing on doing what he can through his executive power rather than trying to negotiate legislative compromises.

Of course now the Republicans are crying because how dare he ignore them but if one side refuses to govern the other side needs to step up.

What's funny is that if the Republicans hadn't been such enormous dicks about Obama for seven years they could've probably achieved some "reforms" to entitlement programs because for a long time Obama seemed to be willing to negotiate a grand compromise on entitlement programs but after about a dozen debt ceiling crisis points it became clear that Boehner couldn't even deliver his own caucus much less forge a grand compromise so Obama ditched that idea and the idea that Hillary would even remotely entertain the idea of negotiating with the crazies in the House on that issue is ludicrous.

Politics used to be about the art of the compromise but the hyper-partisanship on the part of the Republican caucus has basically resulted in them being unable to achieve even slight victories for social and fiscal conservatives.
posted by vuron at 8:48 PM on June 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


When a democratic President isn't running for re-election democrats always have a tough campaign. Bradley challenged Gore, Bill had Jerry Brown and Jesse Jackson; Mondale had Hart and on and on. It isn't a matter of how good the candidate is, Democrats always make it a fight.
posted by humanfont at 8:53 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also to clarify, as a libertarian, I'm almost certainly voting for Clinton. I like Johnson and I'm very pleased that the LP has finally gotten their shit together (to some degree), but the stakes are too high and I don't want to feel responsible for Nader 2.0. Also, I'd like to be able to say I voted for the first woman President.
posted by stolyarova at 8:59 PM on June 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Politics used to be about the art of the compromise but the hyper-partisanship on the part of the Republican caucus has basically resulted in them being unable to achieve even slight victories for social and fiscal conservatives.

On the contrary, maintaining the status quo is a victory for conservatives. Not as much of a victory as giving big tax cuts to the wealthy or ripping out some environmental regulations, but a victory nonetheless. Given the conservative-progressive axis, not getting anything done is inherently a victory for conservatives, who are resistant to change, and a defeat for progressives, who want to, well, progress. And since we have structural safeguards in place that make "keep everything the same" the default position in the event of deadlock, conservatives can win on virtually every issue just by running out the clock.
posted by zachlipton at 9:00 PM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


The bulk of libertarians that you meet are not people that have really in depth thoughts on economics. They tend to support a reduction in taxation and government programs (because fuck you I got mine) and tend to be pretty weak on left libertarian issues concerning social issues other than a general desire to legalize pot.

They tend to be a lot of younger white males that feel really smart and superior but can't seem to be recognized as being the gods of the universe because they feel the old rules have been shifted on them in favor of minorities and women and other undeserving people. Getting government out of the way would allow people like them (the cream of the crop) to automatically rise to the top because honestly almost every libertarian you meet tends to be an enormous douche that can't help but assume that they are the brightest kid in the class and that they would be kings under a more libertarian system. I mean how many libertarians do you know that actually say "yeah I have all these things going agains me so I'd probably be on the bottom of the heap but it's still the right thing to do because Hayek or something"

So while there are definitely some true believers I think the bulk of the current libertarian party tends to be a lot of alt-right types that are right libertarians but incredibly weak on left libertarian causes. There also seems to be a high degree of correlation to some other cancerous subcultures like MRAs and Gamergate and other alt right communities.

On the other side you see a handful of anarcho-syndicalists but even they seem to realize that they are vastly outnumbered and they don't seem to be trying to surround themselves with poseurs just to achieve political viability
posted by vuron at 9:03 PM on June 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


The parties are too damn big. No party can accommodate 100+ million people's views. It's ridiculous to even imagine. And, yes, that is a flaw built into the governmental system we have where people forever converge into two opposing groups, but nonetheless it is a flaw. I'd hate to see the current crop of politicians trying to rehash the constitution, but I think we've proven by this point that it's a bad design. How we get out of this mess is more complicated...
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:04 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Free trade and free movement are essential to libertarianism.

No, the only thing essential to libertarians is tax cuts. Everything else is secondary. They will tolerate racism, foreign wars, homophobia, etc as long as they get tax cuts. A libertarian is just a Republican that likes to smoke dope. When push comes to shove, most will hold their noses and vote Trump.
posted by JackFlash at 9:04 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


How we get out of this mess is more complicated...

Yep. Implementing a bigger house, IRV and at large voting in the United States? It's like the world's worst Mexican standoff.
posted by Talez at 9:08 PM on June 1, 2016


JackFlash, that's both incorrect and unfair. One, I said libertarianism, not libertarians. Two, the Libertarian Party was one of the first to strongly support unpopular social issues like gay rights, privacy, and criminal justice reform. The very first Libertarian Presidential candidate - John Hospers - was also the first openly-gay Presidential candidate. The platform as it stands is extremely progressive. Bill Weld said just a day or two ago that he'd sign any legislation to protect trans people.

And here's where I feel I have to add that I'm almost certainly going to vote for Clinton because I live in a swing state, as are many other libertarians. I still swim in these circles, and I guarantee you, 95% of them revile Trump. The other 5% were never interested in philosophy, just in being "outsiders."
posted by stolyarova at 9:13 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I agree to a certain point Zach with the caveat that the President does have a great deal of latitude inherent in his role as the Executive branch with control over the apparatus of government that has been consolidated over the last hundred of so years in the form of the office of the President and the executive agencies.

That and the death of the Scalia has opened the possibility that Obama or the next president can create a major shift in the status quo regarding the Supreme Court.

With progressives increasingly willing to use the judiciary as a way of advancing progressive causes this disruption to the status quo has resulted in a major shift in the balance of power between Obama and the Republican congress where Republicans can generate a legislative gridlock but progressives can win significant advances by using the courts to their advantage.

So even though the 5-4 conservative split tended to support Conservative economic positions it also advanced some progressive social causes because Kennedy is economically conservative and socially liberal to a degree. However the possibility that Obama or Clinton could replace an Arch-conservative like Scalia with a very liberal justice is terrifying because it largely means that the last couple of decades to trying to undermine the Great Society programs of the 60s will go on a near permanent hiatus.

In this case Republicans cannot be satisfied with remaining on defense. However their base jus nominated someone that is basically unelectable in a national election so I think they are largely fucked moving forward unless they plan on fillibustering Clinton's nominees as well.
posted by vuron at 9:16 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Jeffrey Tucker (one of the libertarian writers I mentioned above) wrote an excellent piece in 2014 distinguishing two 'wings' of the libertarian movement: Against Libertarian Brutalism.
Why should we favor human liberty over a social order ruled by power? In providing the answer, I would suggest that libertarians can generally be divided into two camps: humanitarians and brutalists.

The humanitarians are drawn to reasons such as the following. Liberty allows peaceful human cooperation. It inspires the creative service of others. It keeps violence at bay. It allows for capital formation and prosperity. It protects human rights of all against invasion. It allows human associations of all sorts to flourish on their own terms. It socializes people with rewards toward getting along rather than tearing each other apart, and leads to a world in which people are valued as ends in themselves rather than fodder in the central plan.

We know all of this from history and experience. These are all great reasons to love liberty.

But they are not the only reasons that people support liberty. There is a segment of the population of self-described libertarians—described here as brutalists—who find all the above rather boring, broad, and excessively humanitarian. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms.

These two impulses are radically different. The first values the social peace that emerges from freedom, while the second values the freedom to reject cooperation in favor of gut-level prejudice. The first wants to reduce the role of power and privilege in the world, while the second wants the freedom to assert power and privilege within the strict confines of private property rights and the freedom to disassociate.
You seem to believe that all libertarians are in the second camp, and I acknowledge that some are. However, the first camp is large and thriving.
posted by stolyarova at 9:20 PM on June 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


And I recommend the rest of that article. Tucker eviscerates the brutalists but good.
posted by stolyarova at 9:22 PM on June 1, 2016


I think they are largely fucked moving forward unless they plan on fillibustering Clinton's nominees as well.

I don't think there's any question at all about that being their plan. They've enjoyed utterly unprecedented success with blocking Scalia's replacement, doesn't seem to be any reason why they won't continue. The Republicans have spent the last 8(+) years systematically dismantling the most basic functions of the legislative arm of the government, now time to gut the judiciary.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:26 PM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


That's true vuron, but that shift also means that major policy is increasingly made through the Executive and the Judiciary, which isn't the greatest thing if you care about the balance of powers in an abstract way. Giving further control to the President just increases the damage someone like Trump can do (or, as Republicans would say now, damage someone like Obama can do), and making everything the Supreme Court's job often satisfies nobody, least of all the Court.

We create temporary situations where millions of people are protected from deportation because of prosecutorial discretion (and handed work permits because we can) that could be overturned in an instant by another President. Then we tie the whole mess up in litigation for years. And because we're relying on executive action, there's a lot of necessary reforms that can't be accomplished this way and are just left on the table. Or Congress tries to sabotage Obamacare by refusing to appropriate the funds for insurance companies that the law provides for, leading the Administration to hack together a possibly-legal way to use other funds, leading to years more litigation.

It's a bad way to make policy, which is why the normal order of things was supposed to involve Congress passing laws, the Executive executing them, and the Judiciary judging them. I'm certainly not opposed to what Obama has been doing, but turning the Legislature into a largely irrelevant body to the greatest extent possible (something both parties have achieved together in fact) is not a development I'm thrilled with.
posted by zachlipton at 9:28 PM on June 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


I understand what you are saying but the unfortunately reality is that it's hard to prevent other people from basically representing themselves as libertarians and more or less hijacking the movement from the inside.

This was evident within the Google Ron Paul movement where there was a lot of support for Ron Paul's less than credible economic policies and more or less a willingness to ignore that on social issues he was pretty authoritarian.

The libertarian party seems more than willing to harbor a whole host of kooks (anti-vaxxers, states rights advocates, sovereign citizens, etc) in an attempt to increase libertarian voter numbers to the point where it becomes a viable party but in many ways it reduces the credibility of the party if the majority of supposed libertarians seem to be basing the bulk of their political philosophy on the ideas expressed within Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged.

The unfortunate thing about growing into viability is that some people will be attracted to some elements of you philosophy while at the same time replacing other elements with considerably less libertarian elements.
posted by vuron at 9:31 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I agree with you Zach that the development of the unitarian executive is a troubling aspect of the modern US political landscape but the current tendency of Obama to operate via executive authority while definitely in keeping with the example shown by Dubya is also more or less mandated by the complete unwillingness of Republicans to be equal partners in governance.

If Republicans were willing to compromise for example on aspects of Obamacare they could probably get compromise solutions that advance their interests passed by the current tendency to see any sign of compromise as weakness is resulting in increased marginalization of the legislative branch and simply fueling the rise of the unitary executive with all the potential for disaster inherent in that.
posted by vuron at 9:39 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


vuron, I don't disagree, and I feel like those libertarians do a disservice to the movement. I mean, just look at how Weld and Johnson - the most qualified LP nominees in a really long time - were treated by some of the party. People were saying Weld's not a "real" libertarian because he supported an assault weapon ban, and there was a huge kerfuffle because Johnson is in favor of driver's licenses.

Ultimately I'd like to see an end to the two-party system and greater pluralism generally. Maybe more exposure for the Libertarian Party can drive away some of the kooks. I don't know. It's hard to build a party on the fringes.
posted by stolyarova at 9:42 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


These two impulses are radically different. The first values the social peace that emerges from freedom, while the second values the freedom to reject cooperation in favor of gut-level prejudice. The first wants to reduce the role of power and privilege in the world, while the second wants the freedom to assert power and privilege within the strict confines of private property rights and the freedom to disassociate.

This assumes that the two camps are truly different instead of two heads of the same coin. From the standpoint of someone fairly well-off in the privilege department (and I mean that broadly, race, class, money, job skills, etc...), the idea that it is too much government that increases the role of power and privilege in the world can sound compelling. "Why if only we didn't have fewer taxes/laws/regulations/etc... we'd all be more free and the rising tide would lift all boats."

But from lower down on the privilege stack, people who rely the most on government services don't magically gain more power when those services are eliminated in the name of making everyone more free. A minimum wage worker is unlikely to feel more free if his bus suddenly costs its true subsidized fare and stops two miles from his house because the private bus company only operates profitable routes. An asthmatic is unlikely to feel more free if air pollution regulations are eliminated (yes, I know some Libertarians favor environmental policies that deal with the externalities of certain behaviors that impact others' rights, but that message tends to disappear in the race to slash the government, and saying "just sue" doesn't work). Lower-middle-class workers are unlikely to feel more free if they're now faced with a highly regressive national sales tax that has the practical effect of giving a huge tax break to the wealthiest among us.

At the end of the day, both flavors of Libertarianism fundamentally give more power to the people who already have it. It doesn't really matter whether you have prejudice in your heart or not when you're hacking away at the safety net and the parts of the government people rely on, because the end result for the people is the same. Whether the motive is explicitly "I'm not *-IST; I just want more freedom" or "screw you; I've got mine," the same people are getting shafted by the same policies, and they don't much care whether the policies are clothed in freedom or spite.

And I say this as someone who broadly agrees with the basic Libertarian concept on the small stuff, but not the big stuff. Yes, the volume of regulations can be crazy, and there's no particularly good reason why, say, a federal official should have to approve the drawings on every wine bottle in the country or tour guides in DC should have to take an exam. But since there's nothing in it for anyone to make small, largely meaningless reforms that often go against some entrenched interest, we're a bit stuck there. Meanwhile, when a decent chunk of the LP faithful is seriously upset because their candidate believes in driver's licenses, it's hard to take anybody that seriously.
posted by zachlipton at 10:03 PM on June 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


He's married to Nancy French, a ghostwriter for the Sarah Palin family, and they live in Tennessee with three children.

Not only did she write most of their books but she also writes the non-word-salad posts on Sarah's Facebook & Bristol Palin's blog.
posted by scalefree at 10:04 PM on June 1, 2016


Older Voters- Boomers still have massive numbers and significant economic power. They also seem to be less sold by the allure of Revolution because a lot of them basically want to be able to retire in the next decade.

They may also be less sold on the allure of WOOHOO! REVOLUTION! because they tried that when they were 20, and pretty much all it got them was a whole lotta Nixon.
posted by dersins at 10:19 PM on June 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


I think they are largely fucked moving forward unless they plan on fillibustering Clinton's nominees as well.

The existing Justices aren't getting any younger, and at some point there would be a real risk of losing a quorum. Judges tend to care about the legal system, and in that circumstance I think they'd find a way to interpret the "advice and consent" clause very broadly to allow Clinton's nominee to take their seat.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:34 PM on June 1, 2016


McGovern lost because of factors out of his control, the Democratic party leadership prematurely wrote off his ideas and betrayed his legacy unlike what the Republicans did by embracing Goldwaterism, the New Democrats' electoral successes were grounded in compromising their ideals, etc.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:15 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


This was her opportunity to make a winning appeal to the "liberal" base of the party. the way the primary split young vs. old is really pretty striking and shows she is out of touch with where the party is moving. even in the black community, where she held on to the most support (remember that Bernie started out with single digit support among all segments of a party he doesn't belong to), the black youth vote swung the most toward Bernie.

It is hard for her to get in touch with the youth of the party when the youth of the party has been raised on the unchanging media narrative that she is a craven, power-hungry, conniving harpy. I am on the just-older side of that generation, and I well remember the sense of unease I felt about her until even a few years ago. I held the conviction that she was just wrong somehow and terribly conservative. It took a good deal of self-reflection and reading about her personal history, the RNC media campaign against her, and the actual legislative work she's done for me to recognize how insidiously the Hate Campaign had weaned itself into my subconscious and left me with the gut feeling that she was just bad. I started out disliking her and then searched for ways to confirm that dislike.

I have seen this with nearly all my peers. The people changing their minds are generally either political junkies, people who have made a conscious effort to look for counters to the narrative, or women who have begun to sympathize more with her as they get older and start experiencing more shittiness in their professional lives. Basically if you weren't an adult in the 90s then there's a 95% chance that you entered adulthood with an instinctually negative opinion of HRC. I would argue this plays a large role in her lack of appeal. I mean, there is actually some indicators that Sanders's younger voters are more economically conservative than Clinton's:
. . . [T]hey were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. . . . While young Democrats in the January survey were more likely than those over age 35 to call themselves liberals, their ideological self-designations seem to have been much more lightly held, varying significantly when they were reinterviewed.

Moreover, warm views of Mr. Sanders increased the liberalism of young Democrats by as much as 1.5 points on the seven-point ideological scale. For many of them, liberal ideology seems to have been a short-term byproduct of enthusiasm for Mr. Sanders rather than a stable political conviction.
posted by schroedinger at 11:15 PM on June 1, 2016 [32 favorites]


That article doesn't mention free college or student loan reform at all. Young people can be as single-issue about entitlements as seniors are.

Not to mention, labels and branding are important, too. The embrace of Sanders, a self-avowed "democratic socialist", who isn't even as left as European social democrats are, shows that millennials can give a damn about accusations of socialism. There's a political cultural shift at play.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:18 PM on June 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


New Field Poll is out for CA: likely voters Clinton 45, Sanders 43. (Clinton +9 among those who've already voted). The Field Poll knows California extraordinarily well and has generally proven quite reliable.

In other tilting at windmills related news, the Sanders camp is already crying foul at the prospect that the media will call the race for Clinton when the polls close in NJ on Tuesday, hours before voting in California will have finished. To which I ask that if voters can't figure out that it's already over today, why would they trust CNN to tell them that it's over?
posted by zachlipton at 11:39 PM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


That article doesn't mention free college or student loan reform at all. Young people can be as single-issue about entitlements as seniors are.

"More economically conservative than older Democrats, save when it directly benefits them" is far different than the bright and shining movement of youthful New Leftists that Sanders's supporters have been portrayed as in more than one commentary about them. Not being afraid of a candidate who uses the word "socialist" is a cultural shift--but apparently that doesn't mean they actually identify themselves as such.
posted by schroedinger at 11:39 PM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


"With the most effective form of self-censorship in play — one not based on ideology nor on a silly harkening back to a neutral past that only briefly existed, but based purely on cash — who will stand up and point at the emperor standing in only a comb-over and ask where in the hell his clothes are?"

--Keith Olbermann, Media Goes Too Easy on Donald Trump
(Possibly the most obvious title of all time, but that may be kind of the point)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:48 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I know this is some peoples' thing, but it would be nice if we didn't start up again with the dismissive sniping at either candidate's supporters.
posted by lalex at 11:57 PM on June 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


Is that the same Olbermann who decided to move out of a TRUMP building three months ago because he was embarassed by the name? And who mentioned later in that article:
About 15 months ago, when the elevators failed and many of the heating-unit motors died and the water shut off, I wrote him. He sent an adjutant over to bluster mightily about the urgency of improvements and who was to blame for the elevators and how there would be consequences, and within weeks Trump’s minions were obediently and diligently installing — a new revolving door at the back of the lobby.
That three-week project stretched past three months, smothered the lobby in stench and grime, required the repeated removal and reinstallation of a couple of railings, and for a time created a window frosting problem even when it wasn’t cold out.
Why didn't he move out during the building maintenance disaster? Or did he still think there was still prestige in living in a TRUMP building with no water, no elevators and only intermittent heat? (I'll bet he drank TRUMP brand bottled water.) This article wiped out what respect I used to have for Keith Olbermann. But then, I have little or no respect for anyone who consumes TRUMP branded anything, and that feeling goes back for me DECADES.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:24 AM on June 2, 2016


Because presumably the problems weren't quite as extreme or longstanding as one might assume (Olbermann was carefully vague here and didn't say every elevator, heater, and faucet was out of order at once or for an extended period of time)? Because all but the most ridiculously wealthy people living in Manhattan doesn't or can't up and buy a new apartment costing millions of dollars on the spot just because of some maintenance headaches and a grimy lobby? Because Trump Palace, the idiotic name aside, is a fairly normal-looking condo building on the Upper East Side, home to hundreds of people, and probably seemed like a reasonable enough place to live back when Trump was merely a somewhat baffoonish real estate developer?
posted by zachlipton at 1:46 AM on June 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


So, this Bill Kristol tweet from last year makes me think that he was maybe trying to specifically target the gamergate demographic with David French. Like, why put forward this totally unknown guy? Maybe because he's a gamergater, and per his discussion with Christina Hoff Sommers, she represents gamergaters as a "sleeping giant," and a "consumer uprising," He asks, "can some of this spirit of rebellion come to the campuses or come more broadly to the culture?" She says that "these bitter women" have split so many (male dominated) communities: libertarians, atheists, scientists, sports, but "gamers know how to go after a monster, and they like to win," and they mutually conclude that it's a "citizen rebellion," and Kristol hopes that gamergaters can inspire the rest of America. (The part in the video where they discuss this is begins at around 52:00)
posted by taz at 2:50 AM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


"merely a somewhat baffoonish real estate developer"
Olbermann may never have given Trump his daily "Worst Person in the World" award (he probably would've been evicted it he had), but R. Crumb and I had him pegged in 1989.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:23 AM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Kristol hopes that gamergaters can inspire the rest of America.

And yet he opposes Trump. He can't even get his own hopes and dreams right.
posted by kewb at 3:26 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, Olbermann deserves the blame for not renting from one of those nice New York landlords.
posted by Etrigan at 3:28 AM on June 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


there was a huge kerfuffle because Johnson is in favor of driver's licenses

The scary part is that there was also a huge kerfluffle because he supported the Civil Rights Act.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:51 AM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


You don't have to be a cheerleader, but stop with the back stabbing.

What qualifies as backstabbing? Does advocating for more progressive positions from Clinton qualify as backstabbing?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:29 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Does advocating for more progressive positions from Clinton qualify as backstabbing?

Oh FFS, no one's saying that. Maybe saying the all-but-certain nominee is unqualified and corrupt after you've effectively lost the nomination, and after you said you'd never run a negative campaign and would focus only on the issues. Maybe accusing the party of being corrupt and cheating you of the nomination when you've just plain lost. Going from advocating for positions to attacking the nominee and party is what qualifies as backstabbing.
posted by chris24 at 4:46 AM on June 2, 2016 [29 favorites]


I had my delightful niece over and she was getting laughs because she was calling him Donald Dump and she's fucking six so of course that's witty and it was cute and we were laughing and looked at my brother and said, please let her just have a hazy memory of calling an orange man Donald Dump and then in fifteen years I'll probably hear from her how shitty HRC was during her two terms of president and the *gate in 2018 and the *ghazi in 2020.
posted by angrycat at 5:09 AM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Not to mention, labels and branding are important, too. The embrace of Sanders, a self-avowed "democratic socialist", who isn't even as left as European social democrats are, shows that millennials can give a damn about accusations of socialism."

Yeeeeeeah, but, they've also been hearing Republicans call Obama a socialist for eight years. I've met a fair number of younger voters who think socialism is Obamacare and Dodd-Frank and some expansion of higher education funding. I think the word's been stripped of considerable power and meaning, and that's part of why it's so acceptable now ... and part of why you see some young self-described socialists without really any socialist beliefs. The GOP has been working hard to label mainstream Democratic economics as "socialism" and, hey, most people like mainstream Democratic economics just fine, so socialism isn't so scary. While I think labels are interesting and important because they tell us a lot about group identification (which is frequently more important than actual policy positions in politics), when it comes to actual beliefs I want to see a survey about actual beliefs rather than assuming that anybody's using labels to mean what I think they mean.

Add to that, a lot of young voters have no particular memory of the Cold War or communism; so naturally "socialism bad!" doesn't have quite the power to motivate that it does for the generations who lived with those threats. (In a similar vein, isn't it nice to have an election where nobody is having belated proxy fights from 40 years ago about who did and didn't dodge the draft/serve honorably in Vietnam? That was a visceral issue for so many people in my parents' generation, and the intensity around it -- and the way it could make or break a campaign -- was always a bit mind-boggling to someone who didn't live through it.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:19 AM on June 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


stolyarova: Of course Gary, Bernie and Jill would just end up sitting in the corner having super intense political discussions while Hillary and Donald got in a screaming fight until one of them pushed the other into the pool.

Isn't this basically the plot of Don's Party?
posted by lodurr at 5:52 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


zachlipton: "On the contrary, maintaining the status quo is a victory for conservatives. Not as much of a victory as giving big tax cuts to the wealthy or ripping out some environmental regulations, but a victory nonetheless. Given the conservative-progressive axis, not getting anything done is inherently a victory for conservatives, who are resistant to change, and a defeat for progressives, who want to, well, progress. And since we have structural safeguards in place that make "keep everything the same" the default position in the event of deadlock, conservatives can win on virtually every issue just by running out the clock."

Which is classically what conservatism - like Edmund Burke-style conservatism - was about. As Thorstein Veblen put it, "Conservatism means the maintenance of conventions already in force."

I think there's probably a role for a faction that acts as a brake, that says, "Hey, let's look before we leap, here." The issue is that since Reagan - and increasingly so since the Gingrich Revolution - the GOP has not been a *conservative* party. It has been a *reactionary* party. It doesn't want to keep things the way they are, it wants them to regress.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:10 AM on June 2, 2016 [20 favorites]


The people changing their minds are generally either political junkies, people who have made a conscious effort to look for counters to the narrative, or women who have begun to sympathize more with her as they get older and start experiencing more shittiness in their professional lives. Basically if you weren't an adult in the 90s then there's a 95% chance that you entered adulthood with an instinctually negative opinion of HRC. list

QFT.

I was an adult in the 90s and HRC came to visit the AIDS service organization I worked at when Bill was running for Prez. This was back when HIV was a death sentence and everyone looked like a concentration camp survivor. She spent an afternoon with our clients and staff, listening to us. I have been a fan of HRC since then, but I will say that I was open to Bernie swaying me at the beginning of this campaign. Obviously, that didn't happen and the latest antics with P. Staley and AHF have me really glad we have Hillary to vote for.
posted by Sophie1 at 6:29 AM on June 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


in Trump they see a catastrophe in the making but they didn't see that in Bush?
posted by BentFranklin at 6:36 AM on June 2, 2016


Basically if you weren't an adult in the 90s then there's a 95% chance that you entered adulthood with an instinctually negative opinion of HRC

I actually became an adult during the Clinton administration, which is where I think many young-ish Dem voters are as well. Generally negative opinion of the Clintons, but we certainly grew up in more prosperous times.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:45 AM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


in Trump they see a catastrophe in the making but they didn't see that in Bush?

Bush had handlers, and a fundamental lack of interest in making decisions for himself.
posted by Artw at 6:47 AM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


But, Sophie1, your point about HRC and AIDS is an interesting one, and exactly why so many people were frustrated by the Nancy Reagan thing.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:48 AM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Philippines president-elect Rodrigo Duterte calls for corrupt journalists to be killed

Of course he's not doing the dirty work, his supporters will. Fascist demagogues with power are a bad fucking idea. Keep in mind Trump has also been all "yeah but..." about reporters as well in his remarks about Putin.

Holy shit. This is the United Fucking States in 2016 and one of our presidential candidates is openly talking about admiring Putin's "leadership" and attacking freedom of the press through strengthening libel laws.
posted by Talez at 6:50 AM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Of course they didn't see it in Bush '43. They still see no disaster in GWB. He gave them precisely what they sent him there to give them. Why do we even need to address this question, still?
posted by lodurr at 6:50 AM on June 2, 2016


I was a tween and then a teen in the 90s and I imprinted on Hillary hard like a tiny proto-feminist duckling. I've been waiting impatiently for her to be my President since I had any political consciousness at all.

Occasionally I suspect this of having been my version of teenage rebellion, since I grew up in a very very Republican town. (I still have memories of a classroom mock election where I was the lone vote for Dukakis.) I suppose there are worse/weirder forms of teen rebellion one could have undertaken in the 90s.
posted by Stacey at 6:55 AM on June 2, 2016 [21 favorites]


Donald Trump in 1994: 'Putting a Wife to Work Is a Very Dangerous Thing'
“I love creating stars. And to a certain extent, I've done that with Ivana. To a certain extent, I've done that with Marla. And I like that," Trump told "Primetime Live" correspondent Nancy Collins in an interview that aired on March 10, 1994.

“Unfortunately, after they're a star, the fun is over for me," he continued. "It's like a creation process, it's almost like creating a building. It's pretty sad.”

Trump also shared his views about the women in his life having careers, saying he had mixed feelings on the idea of then-wife Marla Maples working.

“I have days where I think it's great. And then I have days where, if I come home -- and I don't want to sound too much like a chauvinist -- but when I come home and dinner's not ready, I go through the roof," he said.

Trump also said his marriage to former wife Ivana fell apart primarily because he hired her in a management role at Trump Castle Casino in Atlantic City.

“I think that putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing,” Trump said. “If you're in business for yourself, I really think it's a bad idea to put your wife working for you. I think it's a really bad idea. I think that was the single greatest cause of what happened to my marriage with Ivana.”
posted by zombieflanders at 7:01 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]






Less than a week before California voters head to the polls on Tuesday, the Democratic race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is effectively tied in the state, according to the results of the latest Field Poll released Thursday, as reported by local media outlets, including the Sacramento Bee and San Francisco Chronicle.

Bernie needs something like 67% of CA vote to flip the pledged delegate count. The question is whether on June 7, Bernie will concede gracefully or mumble some bullshit about how superdelegates aren't pledged until July at which point I'll lose what remaining respect I have for him.
posted by Talez at 7:15 AM on June 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Bernie needs something like 67% of CA vote to flip the pledged delegate count. The question is whether on June 7, Bernie will concede gracefully or mumble some bullshit about how superdelegates aren't pledged until July at which point I'll lose what remaining respect I have for him.

Oh, for sure. I guess for him, the issue is going to be that the narrative of a win, or a draw, is going to drive his hardcore people bonkers.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:16 AM on June 2, 2016


Another "in the 90s story": I was a teenager in the 90s (high school graduation was '97) and I basically believed every damn right wing conspiracy about the Clintons. It took me most of the 2000s to realize none of those were true (emotionally even if mentally I already did) and also get over the internalized misogyny that left me blaiming HRC for lots of stuff that's Bill's.

One thing that took me especially long to get over was the idea that HRC represented a "dynasty" style of politics. I still do kind of but have made myself realize that it's unfair to say to a woman: thanks for putting your career on hold for your husband's but no you can't go achieve the kinds of things you've obviously wanted to since childhood because your husband already did. We've survived two generations of Bushes (and actually Bush family members have been elected to other state offices which is also "dynasty" politics even if few notice since it's not the president). We can survive a second Clinton. That thankfully got me to actually looking at policy positions and how she interacts with folks which individualizes her (that NY mag article is so good) undoing so much of what I kind of just believe about her, mostly unfairly.
posted by R343L at 7:18 AM on June 2, 2016 [18 favorites]


Australia is having an election. The campaign is eight weeks long, and that's considered a long and tiresome election.

Yeah. We're not them.

Australia has a population of 23.13 million. Ours is 316 million. Voting is not compulsory here, our election system is far more complicated and our population is more diverse in several key ways (racially, religiously, economically, ideologically, etc., etc.) The Australian Prime Minister is an appointee. The US President is not. As part of the vetting process for Presidential candidates, they visit as many states in the Union as they can to make their case to as many demographic groups of people as possible regarding why they should be elected President. All of these factors contribute to the increased scrutiny candidates face as well as longer Presidential campaigns.
posted by zarq at 7:23 AM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


We can survive a second Clinton.

But what if they lie in a deposition in a civil lawsuit again? It'll bankrupt the country and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east! Oh wait...
posted by Talez at 7:23 AM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hey guys! GUYS! I just got a fundraising robocall from Donald Trump! We are living in the end times!
posted by Cookiebastard at 7:27 AM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Australia is having an election. The campaign is eight weeks long, and that's considered a long and tiresome election.

Sure, if you look at the official campaigns. But like anywhere else with a Murdoch-owned media outlet, at a more basic level there is an ongoing decades-long campaign that has not paused and will never pause for any reason at all, ever.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:30 AM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


...at a more basic level there is an ongoing decades-long campaign that has not paused and will never pause for any reason at all, ever.

That's a very good point.
posted by zarq at 7:31 AM on June 2, 2016


But what if they lie in a deposition in a civil lawsuit again? It'll bankrupt the country and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east! Oh wait...

ha ha ha no clinton administration would ever kill hundreds of thousands in the middle east am i right
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:33 AM on June 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


[Good morning, this is your regularly scheduled announcement that short sarcastic comments don't help.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:39 AM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


One thing that took me especially long to get over was the idea that HRC represented a 'dynasty' style of politics.

That's always been a false equivalence. Two-term president George W. Bush was the son of one-termer George H. W. Bush, who was the son of Senator Prescott Bush. Hillary Clinton was married to a guy who was president.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:39 AM on June 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


We've survived two generations of Bushes

Not everyone...
... has been...
...so lucky.
posted by zarq at 7:41 AM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hillary Clinton was married to a guy who was president.

I mean, I don't think we need to go in circles around this again. Some people think that's a dynasty, too. Others don't.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:43 AM on June 2, 2016


oh, for pete's sake, the iraq/afghanistan/terror war is a bipartisan war
posted by pyramid termite at 7:45 AM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I was a college freshman in 1992 when Clinton 1.0 was running for President and while I have some definite issues with some elements of his personality and his apparent willingness to engage in unethical behavior with female subordinates I definitely imprinted heavily on them after a period in which Reagan and Bush 1.0 had achieved a 12 year control over the office and all sorts of behaviors like "greed is good" became normalized in the 80s. Clinton was the Triangulator in Chief and I disliked many of his proxies but this was an exciting time to be in your early 20s when we were largely abandoning the strict US vs International Communism rhetoric of the previous 2 generations and the threat of global annihilation that most people of my generation and older basically lived with on a day to day basis (even if it was mainly a deeply buried existential threat).

It was a time where we saw a kind of rebirth of belief that government could be a positive force and even though a lot of that potential went away with the Gingrich wave election in 94 there was still a pretty positive string of advancements (YMMV). I was really excited in 2000 that Gore would be able to continue that trend despite his stubborn insistence to distance himself from the scandals of Clinton. So when the SCOTUS clearly decided on partisan lines to put Bush as the "winner" I was disillusioned. Queue 8 years of complete shitshow.

In 2008 I was a weak Clinton support (call me a sheeple I guess- or maybe stockholm syndrome) but Obama's organization charted a really dynamic strategy and managed to get the nomination and honestly by the time November rolled around I was a true believer. I never really felt like Obama was going to be Black Jesus because honestly he's more centrist than Hillary but I was really hopeful that the widespread support of his message of Hope would result in at least some movement on the gridlock in Congress issue.

However delays in seating Al Franken and the death of Ted Kennedy and the really soft support of senators like Landrieu and Nelson prevented Obama from achieving as much as most progressives felt like he should achieve. The tendency of Obama to in effect pre-negotiate his positions away was deeply frustrating but I look back and see that his caucus was really weak and he was really trying to do post-partisanship. Of course the Republican leadership decided they would rather go full obstructionist rather than try to forge a compromise that allowed them to achieve some goals like they did when Clinton and Gingrich were in charge. That is in due part to several decades of right wing indoctrination that any form of compromise is capitulation which prevents centrist Republicans from even getting elected to office in most of the US.

Flash forward to today and while I am personally to the left of Sanders and agree with several of his positions I feel strongly that Clinton is more equipped to be the executive and more equipped to deal with Republican reluctance to govern and maybe we will even get a wave election and have Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Schumer (who I think is the most likely selection). Do I want universal coverage? Hell yeah although I can see the benefits of creating universal coverage in a non single payer model. Do I think college costs are a massive issue that is acting as a break on economic growth despite a well understood concept that college education tends to result in improved individual economic outcomes? Yep but I also don't believe that Sanders can deliver.

In short when asked for details on all his proposals Sanders went to the laziest of short hand:

1)Propose popular but political unlikely policy positions
2)Fail to negotiate said policy position with Republican leadership
3)REVOLUTION
4)Unicorns and puppies for everyone

Personally I would kind of like a unicorn and or puppy (ok I'll admit my 6 year old daughter would) but Revolution was not an answer and it's increasingly apparent that a plurality of Democrats felt like it wasn't a viable solution either.

In contrast Clinton has much more incremental policy positions which will still be a struggle to achieve but they are much much more reasonable in the current environment. Do they go far enough on several key issues like Climate or Economic Inequality? No I will readily concede that but in contrast to the only alternative (First Past the Post elections basically mandate a 2 party system) Clinton seems pretty decent. Trump of course looks like his primary goal is to immanetize the apocalypse (that and reinvent his brand) so given the choice of only two scenarios (and let's be honest the choice is between Trump or Clinton) I will pick Clinton every time without even the tiniest bit of heartburn.

I can totally deal with the reality that some progressives will not be willing to support Clinton for a variety of real )or imagined reasons) and I've made my piece with that and I can even deal with being considered to be a sellout but honestly I tend to focus more on the massive number of people that will be demonstrably hurt by Trump (even though my privilege largely insulates me from the worst of Trump's plans) as worth more of my time than being concerned about whether Clinton will sell me to a bank.
posted by vuron at 7:48 AM on June 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


zarq: The Australian Prime Minister is an appointee. The US President is not. As part of the vetting process for Presidential candidates, they visit as many states in the Union as they can to make their case to as many demographic groups of people as possible regarding why they should be elected President. All of these factors contribute to the increased scrutiny candidates face as well as longer Presidential campaigns.

I'd respectfully offer a different analysis: Party leaders in Parliamentary systems are ideally chosen well before elections, so voters typically have plenty of time to get to know them, they have plenty of time to demonstrate their ability to lead a party, and they have plenty of time to make their case. It's typically considered a disadvantage to be forced into an election with a brand new party leader. Here in Canada, Justin Trudeau was leader of the Liberals for two years before he became Prime Minister. Ditto with Harper and Chretien. In Australia, Abbott was leader for 4 years, Rudd had a year, and... well... as for the rest of them, it is Australia, after all.
posted by clawsoon at 7:48 AM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


If it helps, here are some adorable pictures of little girls with Hilary. Just as a reminder that FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT is, everything else aside, a Big Fucking Deal to a lot of us. Those little girls are (hopefully) seeing someone like them becoime President for the first time ever in this country.

The fact that she would be President on the 100th anniversary of women getting the right to vote is both amazing and sad because really, it took 100 years?

And as for all the But What About stuff, ok. She is not a paragon of all the virtues. But she will be the First Woman President. Not the Only. Not the Last. Just the First.

In a time when my right to even use birth control is under serious, sustained attack, that matters.
posted by emjaybee at 7:49 AM on June 2, 2016 [67 favorites]


Zarq: I meant survived in the sense that our political system largely did. Not all do. Obviously the US has a long history of doing awful things to people not in the US (or in the US but disempowered). That didn't start with the Bush presidencies.
posted by R343L at 7:52 AM on June 2, 2016


y'all are aggressively misreading my point, which is again, the primary should never have been this close for Clinton. [...] but you know, whatever, good luck scaring people into voting for her.

The primary shouldn't have been this close for Clinton. But she's a woman.

Hillary Clinton has been politically-active, politically-outspoken, and extraordinarily competent since before she graduated college. All accounts of her say that she knows more about her job, more about what she's doing, and more about how countries actually work than virtually anybody alive. Political theorists, economists, and other intelligent fuddy-duddies all respect the shit out of her, begrudgingly or not. She's been in Washington for as long as just about anybody, yet, despite being a hardcore wonk, still manages to stay in the public eye, as much because she's crazy good at doing the stuff that she does. But she's a woman.

She does the same low-level bullshitty bullshit as virtually every politician on the planet, including the ones who're way more radical than she is. She plays the game. She makes compromises, some of which go against her political principles. She has, over the course of several decades, done things that I'd rather she not do, sometimes explicitly according to political philosophy that I idealistically disagree with and/or outright despise. Same as her husband, same as Obama, same as Bernie. But she's a woman.

She was simultaneously attacked for staying with her husband after he cheated on her, and for her husband's cheating on her in the first place (usually by people on different ends of the political spectrum, but there was a depressing amount of overlap). Rush Limbaugh put photos of her daughter on his TV show and referred to her as "the White House dog". Allegations have been made that she can't be trusted in political office because she gets periods. She has been attacked for being a woman, and therefore for being unintelligent/incompetent/unreliable. She has also been attacked for not being enough of a woman, for being too mannish/too bitchy/too uncomely.

She has been attacked by people who know nothing of her political career other than a few carefully-curated attack points, some of which have been curated by people who write essays on the side about how weak women in college are for asking their professors for trigger warnings. Some of her political critics used to make very gross comments about women back in the day, back when Hillary was just becoming a household name, and now they've graduated to being just gentleman enough not to make those comments quite so overtly. Because they've got a fig leaf of a political critique to make.

She's been the center of a firestorm of hate since before current voters were fetuses. She's been subject to episodes of popular TV shows that make jokes about how she has a vagina, and about how ugly her vagina must be. She's been hated so much that now there's a meta-hatred about how hatable she is. And of course there's a media narrative about how she must be unelectable because people hate her.

She's running against a man who suggested that a woman only possibly criticized him because she was actively bleeding "out of her wherever" at the time. This man is considered a "lesser evil", by people who don't know the first thing about politics and by people who know a surprising lot, and his sole virtue is that he is not Hillary fucking Clinton. She is running against another man whose fans often get angry when women say they want to vote for Clinton, because those women aren't smart enough to know what's good for them.

I doubt I was much older than seven or eight before I heard my first joke about Hillary Clinton's awfulness. I bet that joke was told to me by a kid who thought her husband was pretty cool. I still meet a lot of people who're so "establishment" that they think Bill was a really great president, but who heard Hillary say "superpredators" once and think she's the most hideous racist for having done so. And the point isn't that that was an awful thing for Clinton to say, because yes it was, but that's really not what we're talking about here.

Hillary Clinton is running for president, and she's running for president in an era in which Reddit, a site known for attempting to morally justify the sharing of child pornography and naked pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, is considered such a prominent cultural touchpoint that just this morning I came across an article about what Bernie supporters are saying on /r/bernie (or whatever it's called). She's running for president in an era in which knowing how to use Twitter—a site that not only sucks at handling harassment against women but keeps doubling down and making worse policies—indicates whether or not you're "in touch" with culture enough to understand the nation's needs. All sorts of articles are written about that. Also about how funny and edgy "Weird Twitter" is, and how smart and subversive and politically relevant those people are—and those people are really, really into Bernie Sanders, as a general rule.

The primary shouldn't have been this close for Clinton. I know a lot of people who like Hillary more than I do who think it shouldn't have been close for her in 2008, either, and who feel that Barack Obama rode into a general election weighted heavily in favor of the Dem candidate despite his lack of experience in no small part because he was more likable than his primary opponent. (Disclaimer: I was too young for the primary that year, but I'd have voted for Obama myself.) I do think that Clinton supporters sometimes seem bitter that she faces the enormous challenges that she does, for some reason. No clue where the bitterness comes from there.

Yet Hillary Clinton is winning! And the polls suggest she'll win the general election with hilariously-wide margins, despite a lot of people who're sneering at political analysts for ignoring the polls showing Trump beating his competitors in the primary suddenly about-facing and warning us all that the polls mean nothing, and that Hillary is fucked, and that we're all making a yuuuge mistake by "letting" her run in the general. Maybe we are. Who knows. But she's winning the primary by a mile and a half, so I guess she's good for something after all.

It's probably rigged anyway. Rigged in her favor, if I wasn't being clear.
posted by rorgy at 7:54 AM on June 2, 2016 [73 favorites]


And it's interesting to me how many of the guy friends I've made on this site went from being all about reasonable compromise and the political process to suddenly realizing how angry and progressive they've secretly been all this time. It's great! God, I love revolutions that completely upend the existing societal norms in thrilling and unpredictable ways. Because that's what's happening this year, isn't it?
posted by rorgy at 7:56 AM on June 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


If it helps, here are some adorable pictures of little girls with Hilary. Just as a reminder that FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT is, everything else aside, a Big Fucking Deal to a lot of us. Those little girls are (hopefully) seeing someone like them becoime President for the first time ever in this country.

It is a BIG deal to my 8yo daughter and her family who thinks it's appalling that when her great grandmother was born women couldn't vote, and that a woman hasn't led our country yet.

This is all part of a massive cultural shift for the better. My kids are growing up in a world that is itself growing out of the modern dark ages. Inequality still exists and so does misogyny, racism, sexism etc., but things are slowly leveling out. In that, Clinton's candidacy is part of the fight for a better world.
posted by zarq at 8:06 AM on June 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


roomthreeseventeen: I agree about Hillary and the Nancy Reagan comment. I was incredibly frustrated and angry at her rewriting history there, but she apologized and corrected the record and, with that, I'm willing to let her have that "mistake". Hey, I've made them, too. Bernie and Warren Gunnels are doubling down on the bullshit with AHF though. Gunnels' last tweet: "Gilead and GlaxoSmithKline are ripping off Americans for life saving meds. Should we thank them for being sponsors?"

Bullshit. As Peter Staley tweeted back, "Said the HIV-negative straight white guy whose life wasn't saved by pharma drugs, or whose health doesn't rely on them now."
posted by Sophie1 at 8:06 AM on June 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


Zarq: I meant survived in the sense that our political system largely did. Not all do. Obviously the US has a long history of doing awful things to people not in the US (or in the US but disempowered). That didn't start with the Bush presidencies.

Yes. Very true.
posted by zarq at 8:07 AM on June 2, 2016


Warren Gunnels is really stupid. I don't know what to say about that crap.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:09 AM on June 2, 2016


I drive to work each morning and go on the freeway. On the way I pass underneath a road bridge with a chainlink fence on each side. Over a month ago ago I noticed a lone hand written cardboard sign that says "BE 4 BERNIE, HE'S 4 US". This was probably before the NY primary. A few weeks later the sign was gone, the tape that held it was still there. Later, a similar cardboard sign went up in the same place that said "HILLARY IS BRIBED". I kind of sighed as I drove under it, thinking they must have taken Sanders defeats a bit hard, but they might change their mind since the sign was less than 200 feet from the site of the Trump Rally I told you folks about a month ago.

Well, that sign disappeared too and this morning a new one was put up that just says, "HILLARY LIED".
posted by FJT at 8:16 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I thought the filing deadline was already come and gone to get on the ballot in most states. What, is this going to be a write in candidacy? This just sounds like a PR exercise.
posted by Bee'sWing at 8:17 AM on June 2, 2016


zarq: "It is a BIG deal to my 8yo daughter and her family who thinks it's appalling that when her great grandmother was born women couldn't vote, and that a woman hasn't led our country yet. "

It's exciting to me how, without any kind of pronmpting, my sons (12 and 9) LOATHE Trump. Like, they cross out his name and face in the newspaper, and wrote a song about how much they hate him.

They like Hillary. I don't think the idea that a woman couldn't be president has even occurred to them, which is pretty awesome.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:20 AM on June 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


I thought the filing deadline was already come and gone to get on the ballot in most states. What, is this going to be a write in candidacy? This just sounds like a PR exercise.

It's either gone or very close to gone in most states. Texas was May 9, for instance (and they have a deadline coming up next month for write-in candidates, so even that option isn't completely free).

It really would be a way way way better idea for people like Kristol to push hard for Republicans to vote Johnson/Weld -- It's two former GOP governors! -- and at least get them into the debates, but I'm willing to bet that when it comes down to it, they love the drug war more than they hate Trump.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:26 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


As a cisgender, straight white Gen X male with a decent but not stellar career who totes understands my inherent privilege I can totally see how important electing Hillary Clinton is.

I look back and see my Grandmother who was a brilliant microbiologist who worked with several Nobel Laureates before becoming a stay at home parent and I wonder how her gender likely informed her decision and wonder if she ever regretted not staying in research.

I look back on my Mother and her Sister and I've seen rampant sexism be more or less the norm for most of their careers and I wonder if I would have the strength to shoulder on when society is telling you that you are a second class citizen.

I look at my wife who is an executive with some degree of prominence in her field have to deal with all sorts of micro- and tbh macro-aggressions on a daily basis who constantly has to tell herself that she's not an impostor and that despite being willing to work harder, longer and better than her peers continues to be held in a degree of contempt by some of them. Someone who is still routinely asked to do office housework simply because of her gender because that's what society has come to expect of women. Someone that constantly needs to worry about how she appears to her peers because otherwise she'll be viewed negatively for doing what in a male executive would be commended.

Then I look and I think about my six year old daughter who is going to grow up in this crazy mixed up world where in 2016 women still get paid less than their male counterparts and I get angry because that's bullshit and I want, no I need for her to inherit a world that is better than the one I grew up in.

So yeah when I think about Hillary Clinton at times I am frustrated by her political tendencies but I sometimes stop and unpack my invisible backpack and I really seriously am amazed by her accomplishments and I see it the chance that she will become the first female President as a massive sign that yes things do get better. It's a roller coaster at times where progress is stalled and we even go backwards for period but it's one where the world seems to be gradually and incrementally improving.

For someone that is a natural pessimist like me those signs give me hope and it makes me feel like I can do something to make sure that yes my Daughter might inherit a better world.
posted by vuron at 8:27 AM on June 2, 2016 [28 favorites]


It's exciting to me how, without any kind of pronmpting, my sons (12 and 9) LOATHE Trump. Like, they cross out his name and face in the newspaper, and wrote a song about how much they hate him.

Ha! :) That's awesome. Good for them! His name is synonymous with "mean" for my kids. They literally say, "We don't like him! He's mean!" whenever his name is mentioned or he's on the news. (After Ted Cruz badmouthed New York, he also went on their "mean people who shouldn't be President" list.)

My daughter watched Dancing with the Stars for the first time this past season, when Marla Maples was a contestant. During one of the episodes, one of the announcers mentioned Trump while Maples was dancing, which prompted the following exchange between my kid and my wife.

"Mommy, they said Trump. Is she one of his daughters?"
"No. She used to be married to him."
"Really? But doesn't she know how mean he is?"
"Probably, sweetheart."

They like Hillary. I don't think the idea that a woman couldn't be president has even occurred to them, which is pretty awesome.

It is!
posted by zarq at 8:34 AM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yeah, this is a self-reinforcing cycle basically. And the Republicans in particular have been happy to make government suck and then argue that "See? Government is terrible!" despite the fact that its been intentionally hamstrung by them.

Which prompts me to note again P.J. O'Rourke's oft-cited quote, "Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."

And to observe, as always, that he wrote that in 1991.
posted by Gelatin at 8:44 AM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]




Go home, Washington Post, you're drunk.
posted by Artw at 9:02 AM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


There's room in my heart to hate both.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:02 AM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


In that they're terrible and any outside observer would think the writer ran out of ideas and lost all sense of subtlety?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:02 AM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


...So get your fucking shit together once Hillary is the nominee, unless your ego and need to talk about stuff at your organic locally grown dinner parties for the next four years is greater than your respect for and compassion for the people who would suffer terribly under a GOP presidency and the Supreme Court for the next 10 to 40 years.

Sometimes you make the best choice and you still don’t love it. But this is real life, not your copy of ''Be Here Now.'' I had that book too. It was great! It was written by a wonderful man who comes from a world of white privilege. I do too! Isn’t it crazy that I can make sense in some ways and be annoying or odious to you in other ways ? This is how life works: things are not always all great, and neither are people.

Yes, we ought to have a system in which two parties are not dominant. It’d be great to have more than two viable candidates for president. Can you magically make that happen by November ? No ? Cool. Don’t vote Green. Don’t vote Libertarian. Vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Because it matters, and your choice this fall, barring an act of a God who does not exist, is Hillary or Trump. That’s your choice. Hooray!
I’m Voting For The Democrat In November Because I’m Not A Human Tire Fire
posted by y2karl at 9:03 AM on June 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Go home, Washington Post former head of a significant White House regulatory office who seriously should know better than to sign his name to this metaphor, you're drunk.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:04 AM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I thought it was a neat column but pointing out that the prequels are bad is a pretty hot take so I understand the responses
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:05 AM on June 2, 2016


About Peter Staley and ACT-UP:

The New York Times, From 1990:
Perhaps Act-Up's clearest imprint has been its role in speeding the dissemination of new drugs, a change that may affect treatment of many diseases in addition to AIDS.

At the outbreak of the AIDS epidemic, the Food and Drug Administration would typically allow the distribution of drugs only after testing both their safety and efficacy, a process that kept many promising but unproved drugs off the shelves for years. Many AIDS patients argued that they did not have time to wait.

Act-Up conducted a two-front assault to get the Government to release safe drugs faster, even if their medical benefits were still not completely known: It gained enough expertise to second-guess the experts. And it threw fits, heckling committee meetings of the Food and Drug Administration, and calling a key official a murderer and a Nazi. ''We were beastly to her,'' Mr. Kramer said.

In the last year, Act-Up members say, their pressure has played a significant role in making available faster than usual two new drugs - ganciclovir and DDI - and in lowering the price of an old one, AZT.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is among those officials previously reviled by Act-Up - in 1988 Mr. Kramer wrote an article calling him ''an incompetent idiot'' and a ''monster.'' Dr. Fauci now credits the group with playing a constructive role.

''Did Act-Up play a significant role in the whole idea of expanded access to experimental drugs?'' Dr. Fauci said. ''The answer is yes.'' Some worry that the pendulum may swing too far - that with too many drugs distributed too quickly, effective ones may be dismissed and ineffective ones embraced. While Dr. Joseph, who resigned as Health Commissioner as of Dec. 31, shares those concerns, he credits Act-Up with helping change aspects of a system that had been ''unfair and constraining.''
Staley's Wikipedia page:
On March 24, 1988, he took part in an ACT UP demonstration on Wall Street on the first anniversary of the group. At that demonstration, he was in one of the first waves of people sitting in the street to block traffic, and was interviewed by a local TV station who broadcast his image with the caption "Peter Staley, AIDS victim."

On April 25, 1989, Staley and three other activists barricaded themselves in an office at Burroughs Wellcome in Research Triangle Park, NC to protest the price of AZT (at the time priced at $8,000-$10,000 per year). The four protesters used power tools to bolt metal plates to the door of an unoccupied office and had planned to drop a banner that would be visible from the nearby highway, Interstate 40, before authorities cut their way through a wall. The protestors then chained themselves together, and were cut apart and charged with trespassing and property damage. Staley, who at the time had been in talks with AZT developer David Barry to lower the price on the drug, would make peace with the company years later, following their $1 million donation to AIDS clinical trials programs in 1992.

On September 14, 1989, Staley and six other activists staged another demonstration to protest the rising cost of AZT, this time in the New York Stock Exchange. Dressed in suits and carrying fake credentials, they chained themselves to a balcony above the trading floor before unfurling a banner that read "Sell Wellcome", drowned out the opening bell with airhorns, and dropped fake $100 bills that read, "Fuck your profiteering. We die while you play business." on the traders below. Within days, Burroughs Wellcome lowered the price of AZT by 20%.

In 1989, he was part of a group that stormed the Fifth International AIDS Conference in Montreal, at the time a members-only event for doctors and HIV/AIDS researchers. They took over seats reserved for dignitaries, and released their first Treatment and Data report calling for speedier access to AIDS drugs, although coverage of the demonstration was overshadowed by the events at Tiananmen Square. The next year, Staley was a featured speaker at the Sixth International Conference on AIDS in 1990, held in San Francisco. Staley would be involved in many more demonstrations and protests, ultimately being arrested 10 times, although due to the work of pro bono lawyers, he doesn't have a criminal record.

In 1991, Staley founded an ACT UP activist affiliate called TAG (which originally stood for Treatment Action Guerrillas, and later Treatment Action Group). Formed from ACT UP's Treatment and Data Committee, the group was focused on actively working to pursue AIDS treatment solutions through activism, and working with groups that had been targeted by ACT UP, such as pharmaceutical companies. As an event to launch the birth of the group, Staley draped a giant condom over the home of North Carolina Republican Senator Jesse Helms on September 5, 1991, protesting the position the senator had taken on AIDS-related issues. The side of the giant nylon condom replica read "A condom to stop unsafe politics - Helms is deadlier than a virus." After police arrived, the group stopped the protest, and helped remove the condom. No one was arrested, and Helms decided not to press charges. Years later, Staley would reveal that the stunt had been funded by David Geffen.

TAG broke away from ACT UP to focus on protesting government agencies on working for faster drug solutions through more coordinated AIDS research efforts. At the 1992 International AIDS Conference in Amsterdam, the group called for negotiations and more proactive measures than protests in order to achieve those goals.[34] Staley later said that he regretted the split, wishing that they had been "able to keep it together as an organization."


A February 1990 episode of the Phil Donahue Show featured several of the the original members of ACT UP: Larry Kramer, Mark Harrington, Peter Staley, Ann Northrop, and Robert Garcia. If you can stomach the audience, it's worth watching to see how far attitudes, politics and the fights for medical treatment of people with HIV/AIDS have progressed.

---

Peter Staley is one of a select group of AIDS activists who helped prolong and save countless lives during the height of the AIDS epidemic by attacking pharmaceutical companies that were exploiting and profiting off of the sick and dying, and by challenging local, state and the federal governments and authorities like the Catholic Church -- making sure they couldn't ignore the crisis and ensuring that the masses were educated about the causes of AIDS and the rampant mistreatment of those with HIV. During a time when politicians publicly advocated quarantining people with HIV in camps, for life.

He and his fellow activists are goddamned heroes.

For the Sanders campaign to suggest that Staley in the pocket of big pharma is offensive bullshit. They should STFU and educate themselves, then offer groveling apologies to the man.
posted by zarq at 9:06 AM on June 2, 2016 [37 favorites]


He and his fellow activists are goddamned heroes.

This is true, although Staley's TAG was fairly controversial and often at odds with ACT-UP for all sorts of reasons.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:11 AM on June 2, 2016


...So get your fucking shit together once Hillary is the nominee, unless your ego and need to talk about stuff at your organic locally grown dinner parties for the next four years is greater than your respect for and compassion for the people who would suffer terribly under a GOP presidency and the Supreme Court for the next 10 to 40 years.

Given that Trump has gone out of his way to attack the concept of climate change, I think lot longer than 10-40 years and more than a select group of unfortunates would be affected.
posted by zutalors! at 9:12 AM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is true, although Staley's TAG was fairly controversial and often at odds with ACT-UP for all sorts of reasons.

True. But they also have done a lot of good.
posted by zarq at 9:17 AM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is true, although Staley's TAG was fairly controversial and often at odds with ACT-UP for all sorts of reasons.

There's always been infighting in the AIDS community about how we get things done better, faster, with more or less ideological purity to save lives. The fact of the matter is, no matter what I think of Larry Kramer, he is the elder statesman of the HIV movement and Peter Staley, I would argue is his rightful heir. Both honed their skills in ACT UP, as did I, and both left the group (as did I). There is no ideological purity when we're talking about thousands of lives. You do what you can to save them.

Ultimately, those of us who were able to get the meds in time are still here and those who weren't, aren't. But fuck Michael Weinstein for his attention whoredom and greed. He will go down as having been on the wrong side of history and Peter Staley will still be a hero.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:20 AM on June 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


Given that Trump has gone out of his way to attack the concept of climate change, I think lot longer than 10-40 years and more than a select group of unfortunates would be affected.

This is the thing that scares me the most. We're already on track for a brutal future in the next 20 years, let alone the next century. Trump promising to cut all programs related to clean energy and bring back coal mining is fucking terrifying. The Gulf States may become uninhabitable in the next 70 years. We're next. We need to move faster and harder than we ever thought necessary, and dialing back any of our efforts dooms our children to becoming climate refugees. Miami Beach is already on its way to inundation, and their dipshitty governer has forbidden state employees from even stating the phrase climate change. We may already be fucked, but a Trump presidency will seal our fate.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:31 AM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


former head of a significant White House regulatory office

If more ex-regulators went and wrote dumb pop cultural thinkpieces instead of going into private financial institutions and corporate leadership roles, the country would be a better place. I applaud this career move.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:33 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


And not just a thinkpiece. He wrote an entire book.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:37 AM on June 2, 2016


When a democratic President isn't running for re-election democrats always have a tough campaign. Bradley challenged Gore, Bill had Jerry Brown and Jesse Jackson; Mondale had Hart and on and on. It isn't a matter of how good the candidate is, Democrats always make it a fight.

This comment should get more attention. Sanders' successes this year isn't necessarily anti-Clinton sexism, nor his own performance. There's always a left of center challenge to the Democratic frontrunner. And did all of these races have as few challengers to the frontrunner as 2016 has had?
posted by Apocryphon at 9:43 AM on June 2, 2016


Clinton 43%, Trump 34% (Ipsos/Reuters)

Also, Clinton 51%, Sanders 43%.
posted by chris24 at 9:45 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


(I wish I could favorite emjaybee's link to pictures of Hillary Clinton with girls multiple times. It's made my day.)
posted by R343L at 9:45 AM on June 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Am I the only one expecting a twitter explosion of rage when all the networks declare Clinton the presumptive nominee before the polls even close in California? As John Oliver said, I can hear the typing already.

I hope Sanders does the right thing on Tuesday. We'll see. We could be down to 5 days left in this horrid primary!
posted by Justinian at 10:00 AM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


What qualifies as backstabbing? Does advocating for more progressive positions from Clinton qualify as backstabbing?

A staunch Sanders supporter I follow (for unrelated reasons) on G+ recently called her Diet Trump. That seems pretty stabby to me. He's said a lot of other ridiculous shit about her, too, including being far too credulous about the email bullshit and seemingly buying into the idea that getting more votes is somehow stealing the nomination (which is also pretty stabby, IMO).

Funny thing is, I also support Sanders. I would prefer him be our next President. (If he weren't running, Hillary would be my choice amongst Democrats, with very few exceptions) However, the rhetoric his social media brigade are spewing is pretty fucking toxic.

I'd be worried if it wasn't the same bullshit she's been having thrown at her literally since before I was born. (And I'm not that young..I was alive when Reagan took office)
posted by wierdo at 10:03 AM on June 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


"Bernie is close in California!" the media screams.

Here's an interesting stat: If Hillary draws 50-50 in New Jersey and wins 41% of the vote in California AND NO OTHER DELEGATES BETWEEN TODAY AND JUNE 14, she wins a majority of the pledged delegates.
posted by dw at 10:06 AM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Aw, I have a warm fuzzy story about Hillary Clinton with girls (which I didn't want to seem too partisan by telling but whatevs, it's come up now). So my friends (who are very involved in politics) have a little girl 8 or 9, who is OBSESSED with women in politics and has an autograph book that she carries around to like every political parade and picnic and rally and whatnot to get autographs of every female politician she meets. She has been at this for a couple years now, having gotten the idea from the autograph books they do at Disney with the princesses. She is always after her parents to take her to political events where women will be appearing and I believe has every woman who's served in our state's Congressional delegation, and about half the statehouse. So when Hillary started running for president, Tiny Leslie Knope was over the moon. And wrote a fan letter to Hillary's campaign. When Hillary's campaign came through the area, her staff reached out to my friend's mom and was like, "Hey your daughter wrote the cutest letter, would she like to meet Hillary at the rally?" So they got to go to the rally and my friend's little girl got to meet Hillary after with all the important state politicians and everyone backstage. Hillary knew who she was (excellent staff work), thanked her for the letter, signed her autograph book, took a picture with her, and was really charming and personal talking to her about her interests and her desire to go into politics and so on. For my friend's daughter, it was better than meeting the Disney Princesses.

She wants to go door-to-door campaigning for Hillary now (because she knows that's how it works, because her parents do it for local politicians), but her parents are a little concerned about the level of vitriol that even a 9-year-old girl might get, so they're trying to channel her enthusiasm into venues where she's more likely to get a unanimously positive reaction. (Or at least an appropriate one.)

Anyway, it matters SO MUCH to my friends' daughter and they were really impressed with how on-the-ball Clinton's campaign staff were with that sort of retail politics/constituent service, and how really lovely Clinton was in person. (Their assessment of the stump speech was "eh, so-so.") And it's just a cute story. I flipped through all those photos to see if hers was there (which it is not, but it's very similar to the other nerdy little girls looking super-excited to be in photos with her).
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:08 AM on June 2, 2016 [77 favorites]


Steve Kornacki was subbing for Rachel Maddow on Tuesday when he went over the dates and stats from 2008 Obama/Clinton vs. today Clinton/Sanders. He made the important points that:

1. Hillary's supporters were basically saying Hillary or bust this late in the game
2. Hillary was talking about taking the fight all the way to the convention.
3. Hillary was introduced as "the next POTUS" the night of the primaries in California, despite the fact that she had no way forward.
4. Hillary's supporters polled were less likely than Bernie supporters now to say they would back the Dem candidate in the general.

Hillary then turned 180 and threw her full support behind Barack Obama and we know how that turned out. The clip is worth watching and I wish I could find it. If someone does, please post it.
posted by Sophie1 at 10:08 AM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


isn't it nice to have an election where nobody is having belated proxy fights from 40 years ago about who did and didn't dodge the draft/serve honorably in Vietnam?

Trump "was a Vietnam draft dodger," Kuby said.

(Smoking gun claims to have public records--student deferments at start then he got a medical disqualification later.)
posted by bukvich at 10:08 AM on June 2, 2016


"Bernie is close in California!" the media screams.

No kidding. NPR, at least, has done its darndest to make the remainder of the Democratic primary seem neck-and-neck, but as you point out, it isn't about "momentum" or the number of victories, it's about delegates, and at least since the Indiana primary (in which, incidentally, I voted for him), Sanders has needed to win by greater and greater margins to attain the requisite numbers.

If memory serves me correctly, Clinton could lose every single contest since Indiana and still wind up with enough delegates, while Sanders's path, while theoretically possible, is much, much steeper.
posted by Gelatin at 10:10 AM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I can't imagine that anyone cares that Trump was a Vietnam draft dodger. Is there a single person in the world who thought that he wasn't?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:11 AM on June 2, 2016


Well I mean would you want Trump in your platoon?
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 10:16 AM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Here's the clip! I found it really fascinating.
posted by Sophie1 at 10:18 AM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Bernie is close in California!" the media screams.

agg whenever I hear/see this I want to reach into the radio/TV, grab the talking head by the ear and be like "PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION HAVE YOU HEARD OF IT"
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:21 AM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Notes for future elections: don't use fucking Reddit to organize anything if you don't want a bunch of trolls to turn up.
posted by Artw at 10:21 AM on June 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


At this point I want it to be over, the best outcome is a five-point Hillary win in CA.

Second best is five-point Sanders win.

If it is close and twitter idiots start demanding recounts I will lose it

please be over
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:23 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's an interesting stat: If Hillary draws 50-50 in New Jersey and wins 41% of the vote in California AND NO OTHER DELEGATES BETWEEN TODAY AND JUNE 14, she wins a majority of the pledged delegates.

If Clinton draws in either state, Sanders is going to take it to the convention. I don't see any other narrative.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:28 AM on June 2, 2016


I'm not sure what this with mean to the Notorious R.B.G. memes, but there is now a preying mantis named after Justice Ginsburg.
posted by peeedro at 10:30 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Even if Clinton wins by five-points, some people will point to the polls showing a thin Clinton lead as proof of it being stolen and demand a recount or a lawsuit or something. The only scenario acceptable is for Bernie to win.
posted by FJT at 10:30 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think that it's very likely that Clinton could win both states in a landslide and Sanders would "take it to the convention," because that seems to be the mood he's in. The question is whether it matters.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:31 AM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


It also depends on how he does it. The right thing would be take a step back, and instead of going for broke in trying to scramble for every possible delegate and vote, attack Hillary on the issues again, on matters of policy. The best of the Sanders campaign was when it forced Hillary's platform to shift to the left. That's what he should be focusing on, from here to the convention, to even afterwards (both before and after the general election). The whole appeal of Sanders in the first place was that of substance. He should use that leverage to shift others to the left, not simply run for the sake of running.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:34 AM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, here's a random thought that just entered my mind: Could Trump hold a counter-event somewhere in the vicinity of the Democratic convention, sometime during the convention? Is there a law or rule against something like that?
posted by FJT at 10:38 AM on June 2, 2016


Clinton won California in 2008. Obama won the nomination and the presidency. Losing Calfornia to Sanders would be embarrassing but it's not going to change anything.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:38 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]




the only leverage Sanders has at this point is "we have enough supporters to fuck up your convention, and we could encourage people not to vote for Clinton despite the alternative being literally the worst person the GOP has run in the last century" which is shitty af leverage
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:39 AM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I can't imagine that anyone cares that Trump was a Vietnam draft dodger.

It might be considered an issue when Trump claims his qualification for commander in chief is his time at a high school military academy.

He has stated that his time marching around the high school quad with a toy wooden rifle gave him “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.” Yes, more experience than actually military veterans.
posted by JackFlash at 10:39 AM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think that the entire Democratic apparatus will swing into general election mode after California. President Obama, who has been very no-drama, "let the primaries play out", is already pivoting toward Trump and the rest of the elected Dem leaders will follow, regardless of what Sen. Sanders does (and to be clear, I still hope and expect that he will concede after Tuesday, as Sec. Clinton did eight years ago in similar circumstances).

I think/hope that the media narrative shifts to Clinton v. Trump, not so much because I think it will matter a huge amount but because this whole interminable thing just needs to be over.

On non-preview -- I agree with Apocryphon, if the Sanders campaign can transition back to the high-road, issues-based campaign that I and many others were proud to support, that could be helpful in the long run. If they are not able to do so due to the acrimony of the last few weeks, then they need to stop.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:40 AM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Could Trump hold a counter-event somewhere in the vicinity of the Democratic convention, sometime during the convention? Is there a law or rule against something like that?

No rule, other than Trump needing to get whatever permits are locally required.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:41 AM on June 2, 2016


Republucans voters demonstrably do not give a shit about this sort of thing.
posted by Artw at 10:41 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


do not give a shit about this sort of thing.

Chickenhawking? True, just look to our esteemed Bush the Lesser.
posted by Existential Dread at 10:46 AM on June 2, 2016


One of the best things about President Obama was that he was too young to have served in Vietnam. Really, I'm pretty sick of the "you dodged the draft" thing. Most people with privilege and wherewithal dodged the draft if the at all could.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:46 AM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


once they established with Kerry that serving in Vietnam was also bad and disqualifying, I think the draft dodger charge lost its bite
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:48 AM on June 2, 2016 [18 favorites]


Really, I'm pretty sick of the "you dodged the draft" thing. Most people with privilege and wherewithal dodged the draft if the at all could.

I think it's more an issue of dodging the draft while simultaneously pretending to have military training/credentials, such as Trump's claim above about high school 'military training.'
posted by Existential Dread at 10:52 AM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I actually hope Sanders and Clinton start showing signs of rapprochement. It's good for supporters of both sides to see this sort of thing start to happen. In fact, it was about at this point in the race where Clinton and Obama had their secret meeting in Dianne Feinstein's home. (Also check the link for some flashback internet commentary of the Clinton/Obama race in '08)
posted by FJT at 10:54 AM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


One of the best things about President Obama was that he was too young to have served in Vietnam. Really, I'm pretty sick of the "you dodged the draft" thing. Most people with privilege and wherewithal dodged the draft if the at all could.

Not a problem for Hillary, either ;)
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:31 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump releases video of testimonials for Trump University, featuring former students with odd ties to Trump. And this guy:
"I had nothing but a great experience with Trump University," Moyer said. "Everyone knew it wasn't a real university. ... What the video doesn't talk about is that because of Trump University I ultimately enrolled in 2007 in the Wharton Business School."

Moyer has often described himself in media appearances and in written materials as an alumnus of the prestigious business school at the University of Pennsylvania, of which Trump and some of his children are graduates. Upon questioning by AP, Moyer clarified that he had attended two-week executive seminars offered by Wharton and had never been academically enrolled as a student at the university. He does not have a bachelor's degree.
I'll say this: the man clearly likes buying ridiculously overpriced seminars from institutions with grandiose names.
posted by zachlipton at 11:32 AM on June 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


Clinton's gonna give a speech in front of 17 american flags today. I think they could probably jam a few more up on there if they were dedicated enough. Amateurs.
posted by Justinian at 11:34 AM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh FFS, no one's saying that. Maybe saying the all-but-certain nominee is unqualified and corrupt after you've effectively lost the nomination, and after you said you'd never run a negative campaign and would focus only on the issues. Maybe accusing the party of being corrupt and cheating you of the nomination when you've just plain lost. Going from advocating for positions to attacking the nominee and party is what qualifies as backstabbing.

Well I've seen virtually none of that in these discussions, here. So where is the vitriol coming from?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:34 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Really, I'm pretty sick of the "you dodged the draft" thing. Most people with privilege and wherewithal dodged the draft if the at all could.

I think it's more an issue of dodging the draft while simultaneously pretending to have military training/credentials, such as Trump's claim above about high school 'military training.'

That, and for some reason, the Republicans seem to have been credited with being by default more "qualified" or "serious" on matters of defense (it doesn't help when Democrats feed that perception by appointing Republicans as defense secretary). Pointing out how many prominent conservatives dodges the draft should have undercut that perception, but the media is loath to give up its narratives, although the disaster of W's Excellent Adventure in Iraq may have taken the shine off a bit.
posted by Gelatin at 11:36 AM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton's gonna give a speech in front of 17 american flags today. I think they could probably jam a few more up on there if they were dedicated enough. Amateurs.

Clearly she hates America. Otherwise, she'd have 50 flags and come out in a American flag pantsuit. But then she'd be pandering and shrill. And thus hate America.
posted by dw at 11:50 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


The vitriol against Hillary is being propped up by numerous alt-journalism bloggers who use their platform to promote a narrative that Clinton is incredibly corrupt and then the social media sites like Reddit and Twitter are used to enhance and magnify the exact same talking points over and over.

For a long while I assumed there was simply just a really strong but slightly delusional social media presence that were die-hard Bernie supporters that were really enamored with the idea of connecting with a campaign over social media and they were basically being really pro-Bernie.

However at a certain point in time it's largely shifted from being pro-Bernie to being undeniably anti-Clinton and more and more alt-right talking points and catchphrases seem to be leaking into the discourse which makes me think that a not inconsiderable number of alt-right types are using social media and fake accounts as a way to sow dissension in the ranks. I am uncertain how many of these individuals even believe in Trump or they are just doing the typical gamergate style dogpile routine.

They also like pretending to be stereotypical Sanders supporters and Bernie or Bust types as a way of making it seem like the support for this sort of thing is strong. This of course gets reported by the alt-journalist types with axes to grind (like the young turks) and inevitably it leaks into mainstream political journalism because why actually try to report when you can basically do a pundit piece off a quick read of r/Politics topics. So we get lots of non stories like "Why do millenials hate Hillary" when there isn't actually a ton of evidence that they actually hate her.
posted by vuron at 11:51 AM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


The camera wasn't showing a wide enough shot people! There are actually 19 flags! I stand corrected.
posted by Justinian at 11:53 AM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Doug Schoen is hoping so hard it hurts: Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee
posted by bardophile at 11:59 AM on June 2, 2016


Another thought about the draft-dodging issue: One way the Republicans foster the perception of being "strong on defense" is to be as hawkish as possible. It's a legitimate criticism to point out that many prominent conservatives are eager to call for putting American troops in harm's way when they actively avoided serving themselves.

(And while I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton's hawkishness, I do put it into the context of the Democrats of the 80s and 90s being widely perceived as being "weak on defense;" recall the debacle of Michael Dukakis being photographed in a tank.)
posted by Gelatin at 11:59 AM on June 2, 2016


Shaun King is going on a tweetstorm right now about how Sanders supporters will refuse to vote for Hillary in the general and see her as the next worst thing to Trump. So that's charming.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:59 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Shaun King needs to chill out.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:05 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


So we get lots of non stories like "Why do millenials hate Hillary" when there isn't actually a ton of evidence that they actually hate her.

But they kind of do! Because many, many of them literally think that Hillary is "stealing" the nomination from Bernie. And geeze, wouldn't you be pissed if that was actually happening to your candidate? I would be furious! Of course, it's *not* what's actually happening, but if you were a young Sanders supporter and all of the information you got came from the Sanders campaign and Sanders surrogates, wouldn't that be the conclusion you drew? For example:

Shaun King is going on a tweetstorm right now about how Sanders supporters will refuse to vote for Hillary in the general and see her as the next worst thing to Trump. So that's charming.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:05 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'll be honest the Green party isn't going to win over that many Bernie supporters because Stein just isn't a particularly charismatic leader and most of the lolbertarians will be supporting Trump anyway.

Yeah okay but what if....
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:07 PM on June 2, 2016


Wow. I'm really glad I unfollowed Shaun King on Facebook when he started stumping for Bernie... I felt bad about it because he was a great source of information about BLM issues, but I could see he was going to go fully bonkers on the election and it's clear that he surpassed my expectations.
posted by palomar at 12:08 PM on June 2, 2016


I'd also be pissed if I thought the government was doing mind control experiments by fluoridating the water and beaming FM radio messages into my dental fillings, but it would be weird to have the media legitimize those claims by parroting them uncritically.
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:09 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think some social media personalities at the idea that twitter can be used as a platform to raise consciousness that they forget that while perceptions can influence reality they also need to back up bold assertions with evidence or their claims can be easily dismissed.

So are millenials really going to refuse to vote for Hillary or is Shaun King trying to effect an outcome in which his perceptions influence reality through the power of his message and followers (and retweets).

This sort of logic tended to dominate right wing circles (and maybe still does). Basically the idea that reality is manufactured and that by dominating perceptions you can create the reality that you want to see. I think there is some validity to those types of strategy to a certain point but when things go dramatically wrong with your predictions like they did on 2012 when right wing pundits were predicting a Romney victory when all the predictive modeling suggested a different outcome you risk losing a lot of credibility.

I suspect a lot of pundits on the left are in the situation now where they either need to double down on the Hillary is corrupt and unelectable narrative even though there is little evidence to show that is actually accurate.
posted by vuron at 12:14 PM on June 2, 2016


I couldn't anymore with Shaun King a month ago. Putting off reading any tweetstorm he might be on now until I'm in a safe place with a drink in my hand.
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:14 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


GOOD NEWS EVERYBODY, Paul Ryan just completed his flip-flop on supporting Trump and will vote for him. (That's Ryan's hometown paper.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:16 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'd also be pissed if I thought the government was doing mind control experiments by fluoridating the water and beaming FM radio messages into my dental fillings, but it would be weird to have the media legitimize those claims by parroting them uncritically.

Well, maybe, but the media already legitimize many bogus Republican claims by parroting them uncritically. Such is the pitfall of "balanced" journalism.
posted by Gelatin at 12:17 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]




Dude, we never doubted you would.
posted by Artw at 12:26 PM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


It's sad yet hilarious watching his staff trying to spin this as totally not an endorsement.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:27 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


As foretold in the stars, Paul's endorsement boils down to "We firmly believe that Trump will sign whatever garbage we put on his desk."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:29 PM on June 2, 2016 [18 favorites]


BTW, if you have a chance to watch Clinton's speech going on now, she's tearing into Trump. And as we all know, Trump handles criticism and mockery from women with tact and class.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:29 PM on June 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


From the Ryan op-ed:
Donald Trump and I have talked at great length about things such as the proper role of the executive and fundamental principles such as the protection of life. The list of potential Supreme Court nominees he released after our first meeting was very encouraging.

But the House policy agenda has been the main focus of our dialogue. We’ve talked about the common ground this agenda can represent. We’ve discussed how the House can be a driver of policy ideas. We’ve talked about how important these reforms are to saving our country. And we’ve talked about how, by focusing on issues that unite Republicans, we can work together to heal the fissures developed through the primary.

Through these conversations, I feel confident he would help us turn the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people’s lives. That’s why I’ll be voting for him this fall.
From my comment on May 6th:
Ryan will meet with Trump next week

Prediction: "Donald and I had a great discussion about American values, conservative principles, and the future of the Republican Party. I asked some very tough questions and I was surprised by the thoughtful answers he gave. I am now satisfied that Mr. Trump is the strong leader our party and, more importantly, our country needs right now. It is with no reservations that I offer my full endorsement to Donald Trump as the GOP nominee and next president of the United States of America."
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:30 PM on June 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


The Hollywood Reporter: California Screamin': An interview with Donald Trump at his Beverly Hills home. "The Donald Trump Conversation: Politics' "Dark Heart" Is Having the Best Time Anyone's Ever Had" by Michael Wolff.
posted by zarq at 12:31 PM on June 2, 2016


Clinton is unloading on Trump with both barrels. Trump's response to far is to remind us that he has so little use of a teleprompter that he can't even spell it.
posted by peeedro at 12:33 PM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Donald Trump and I have talked at great length about things such as the proper role of the executive and fundamental principles such as the protection of life.

For those of you keeping score at home, that means yes to abortion restrictions, but no to gun control.
posted by Gelatin at 12:34 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Has Clinton finally found a way to make us like her? It seems so simple now.
posted by Artw at 12:35 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


(and no to universal health insurance, regulation of dangerous industries, pollution control, worker safety, et cetera.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:36 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I pretty sure that Trump bonded with Ryan over their shared love of working out and their favorite protein shake flavors and then they ran down to McConnells office and left a big bag of dogshit in his chair.

Douchebros unite
posted by vuron at 12:42 PM on June 2, 2016


Who's all left on team #NeverTrump now?

Paul Ryan
Mitt Romney
Ross Douthat
David Brooks
Rick Snyder

to be continued...
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:48 PM on June 2, 2016


I work with a lot of conservatives, and it's been completely surreal watching them go from "I'd rather vote for Hillary!" six months ago to "well, I guess Trump won't be a complete disaster" today.
posted by malocchio at 12:49 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


McConnell being everywhere while he's on this ill timed book tour? I'm so tired of hearing his smarmy voice they can't leave enough dog shit for me.
posted by readery at 12:49 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton's speech was very smart. Not only did she go after Trump with a hammer but because it was foreign-policy focused she was able to showcase without having to say it that Sanders could in no way, shape, or form have in a million years put together a speech like this.
posted by Justinian at 12:50 PM on June 2, 2016 [19 favorites]


Anyone have a link to a transcript or detailed quotes?
posted by bardophile at 12:52 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am about 80 percent certain that Rick Snyder is a Trumper but just knows that his endorsement would hurt Trump more than it would help.
posted by Etrigan at 12:52 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


oh yeah

Mark Kirk
Rob Portman
Ron Johnson (ok, "supporting" not endorsing, apparently)

I know someone on the internet was categorizing GOP bigwigs' level of capitulation but I can't remember who it was.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:54 PM on June 2, 2016


I work with a lot of conservatives, and it's been completely surreal watching them go from "I'd rather vote for Hillary!" six months ago to "well, I guess Trump won't be a complete disaster" today.

Like the saying goes, Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.
posted by Gelatin at 12:54 PM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]




Harry Frankfurt, On bullshit and Donald Trump:
The bullshitter is more creative. He's not submissive. It's not important to him what the world really is like. What's important to him is how he'd like to represent himself. He takes a more adventurous and inventive attitude towards reality, which may be sometimes very colorful, sometimes amusing, sometimes it might produce results that are enjoyable. But it's also very dangerous.

Liars attempt to conceal the truth by substituting something for the truth that isn't true. Bullshit is not a matter of trying to conceal the truth, it is a matter of trying to manipulate the listener, and if the truth will do, then that's fine and if the truth won't do, that's also fine. The bullshitter is indifferent to the truth in a way in which the liar is not. He's playing a different game.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:55 PM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Vox: Hillary Clinton rolled out the anti-Trump argument that could deliver a landslide
"There’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf course deal," she said. "But it doesn’t work like that in world affairs. Just like being interviewed on the same episode of 60 Minutes as Putin is not the same as actually dealing with Putin."

Bottom line: "The stakes in global statecraft are infinitely higher and more complex than in the world of luxury hotels."

Clinton is pitching a 70-30 argument

Over the course of the past year, Clinton has been talking primarily to Democratic Party primary voters. This argument — and this speech in general — is not one that will be especially appealing to them.

What she's offering instead is an argument aimed at a much broader audience. It's an argument that acknowledges, implicitly, that there are tens of millions of right-of-center Americans who've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate but didn't support Trump in the primary. Clinton is pitching an argument aimed at those people — one designed to offer little ideological or policy content in hopes of appealing to 70 percent of the population rather than 51 percent.

posted by zarq at 12:59 PM on June 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'd like to imagine we live in a world sufficiently rooted in reality that the endorsement of Donald Trump by the Rolling Thunder douchebags would be enough to completely discredit the idea that Republicans or Republican voters give half a shit about the military, are better on defense, or are more on the side of individual soldiers than Democrats.

In a sane world the fact that a group supposedly founded for POW's endorsed a man who went out of his way to insult and denigrate POW's would demolish any credibility Rolling Thunder had and make people point at them and laugh.

Mind, I've always maintained that even long before Swiftboating was a thing and John Kerry was torn to shreds by ostensibly pro-military pro-veteran groups in favor of a drunk fratboy chickenhawk that any vets claiming to support the Republicans because they're better for veterans was pure BS.

But you'd think, in a sane world, that now the mask has been ripped of vet groups as thoroughly as the mask has been ripped off the Republican party's love of racism, and we'd be openly acknowledging that they're just a bunch of partisan hacks no different in any significant way from FOX news or the Club for Growth or whatever.

That, of course, is foolishness. The American people will never acknowledge that Rolling Thunder and other vet groups endorsing Trump shows that they're just a bunch of blowhard assholes. Nope, somehow they'll twist it and claim to believe the transparent lie that Trump is a friend to vets while that evil Democrat hates vets.

There are times when I believe I can never be cynical enough.
posted by sotonohito at 1:00 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


tivalasvegas: "I know someone on the internet was categorizing GOP bigwigs' level of capitulation but I can't remember who it was."

Maybe TPM's Elected Official Trump Endorsement Scorecard?
posted by mhum at 1:00 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


The #NeverTrump crowd has always been just as idiotic as the #NeverHillary crowd. Elections have consequences, the candidates are not even remotely the same, and national elections really have come down to a few hundred votes.

If you want to eliminate reproductive rights, want to lower taxes on the rich, reduce gun control, expand the military, roll back civil rights for minorities, and allow unmitigated planet-destroying climate change, you should vote for the Republican, even if it's Donald Trump and you think he got rich from committing literal fraud.

If you like access to safe legal abortion, higher taxes on the rich, more gun control, a smaller military, civil rights for minorities, and a human-friendly climate 100 years from now, you should vote for the Democrat, even if it's Hillary Clinton and you think she wouldn't be fun to watch Bob's Burgers with.

If you think you will be judged at the pearly gates for the ideological purity of your ballots and are wholly unconcerned with outcomes on planet Earth, write in "Lizard People" or possibly vote for Gary Johnson.
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:01 PM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Somebody please link video of the Clinton speech when it comes out, please. This sounds really compelling.
posted by rorgy at 1:04 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I work with a lot of conservatives, and it's been completely surreal watching them go from "I'd rather vote for Hillary!" six months ago to "well, I guess Trump won't be a complete disaster" today.

malocchio, I'm seeing a move in the opposite direction with republican business clients I work with. They are revolted by Hillary but think Donald could break the country. One telling thing for many is they think he sucks as a businessman, they see right through that schtick. Now maybe they will change, but right now they are very depressed by The Donald and telling me they plan to vote for Hillary.
posted by madamjujujive at 1:04 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Looks like The Rock may want to run in the future? I propose this as a campaign ad.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:05 PM on June 2, 2016


I believe you can watch Clinton's speech here on the c-span site.
posted by Justinian at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Huh, in my head the original scorecard had been a little more tongue-in-cheek / biting in tone than Josh Marshall usually is, but yeah that's it.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2016


Don't find a Clinton speech transcript yet, but this Vox recap has some generous excerpts.
posted by madamjujujive at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


You can only see 9 of the American flags for most of the video on that link if such things matter to you. That's 10 whole flags you're missing.
posted by Justinian at 1:07 PM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


madamjujujive, you just made my day a little brighter. :)
posted by malocchio at 1:10 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


How long before Kristol and French have a come-to-Jesus moment and bend down to kiss Trump's ring like Paul Ryan, do you think? A week? A month?
posted by tobascodagama at 1:10 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different — they are dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas: just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies. He’s not just unprepared, he’s temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility. This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes — because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.
Well said.
posted by defenestration at 1:11 PM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Also, I know it's a well-worn attack on Obama—probably because the idea is that he's not presenting his own thoughts or something?—but what the hell is with the obsession with tele-prompters.

Some people actually want to communicate well-thought out and prepared ideas, not just some self-contradicting (often in the same sentence) bullshit they just pull outta their ass.
posted by defenestration at 1:14 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't know why I put myself through it but once again I braved /r/politics to see what they were saying. Any posts about Clinton's speech are being downvoted to oblivion in favor of massive upvotes for predictions that Clinton will be indicted soon. Why do I do this?
posted by Justinian at 1:14 PM on June 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Looks like The Rock may want to run in the future? I propose this as a campaign ad.

That, or the last scene from the movie San Andreas:

***SPOILER***

[looking out over the rubble] "What now?"

"Now... we rebuild!"
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:14 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Those excerpts are great! Thanks madamejujuve!
posted by bardophile at 1:15 PM on June 2, 2016


“You can’t work with other countries via Twitter put-downs. Though I’m sure he’s typing up a few right now.”

OK, that's GOLD.
posted by maudlin at 1:20 PM on June 2, 2016 [33 favorites]


"It’s no small thing when he suggests that America should withdraw our military support for Japan, encourage them to get nuclear weapons, and said this about a war between Japan and North Korea – and I quote – "If they do, they do. Good luck, enjoy yourself, folks."

I wonder if he even realizes he’s talking about nuclear war."
...
"He says he doesn’t have to listen to our generals or ambassadors, because he has – quote – 'a very good brain,'" she argued. "He also said, 'I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.' You know what? I don’t believe him."
...
"Imagine Donald Trump sitting in the Situation Room, making life-or-death decisions on behalf of the United States. Imagine him deciding whether to send your children into battle. Imagine if he had not just his Twitter account at his disposal when he’s angry, but America’s entire arsenal.

Do we want him making those calls – someone thin-skinned and quick to anger, who lashes out at the smallest criticism?"
...
The point here isn't about specific policies, or even comments. It's about the general way Trump has behaved himself: volatile, self-absorbed, thin-skinned. These qualities, Clinton argues, are what give rise to his terrible foreign policy proposals.

Clinton takes aim, for example, at Trump's positive comments about dictators in Russia, China, and North Korea. "He said, 'You’ve got to give Kim Jong Un credit' for taking over North Korea – something he did by murdering everyone he saw as a threat, including his own uncle, which Donald described gleefully, like he was recapping an action movie," she recounts.

These aren't just random comments, Clinton says — they are windows into a broken psyche. She more or less literally tells Trump to seek psychiatric help rather than the presidency:
"I’ll leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants. I just wonder how anyone could be so wrong about who America’s real friends are. But it matters. Because if you don’t know exactly who you’re dealing with, men like Putin will eat your lunch".
---------------------------------------------

I love this. Kinda thrilled that I get to vote for her twice this year. :)
posted by zarq at 1:21 PM on June 2, 2016 [34 favorites]


Harry Frankfurt, On bullshit and Donald Trump:

It's funny, I quoted Frankfurt's On Bullshit last year in a thread about Trump, almost exactly along the same lines. I wonder if he reads the site.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:24 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is great, too:
“Trump says over and over again, ‘the world is laughing at us’. He’s been saying this for years.” [Clinton says he took out a full-page newspaper ad in 1987 saying the world is laughing at us.] "You’ve got to wonder why somebody who fundamentally has so little confidence in America, and has felt that way for 30 years, would want to be our president.”
posted by maudlin at 1:25 PM on June 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


From Vox: Clinton has really put her finger on the reasons people around the country are worried about Trump. It's true that Trump knows nothing about foreign affairs...

I think the power of this speech goes beyond that, because the very things that many people are worried about--Trump's unpreparedness and his temperament--have been warped into his strongest attributes by his supporters. "Unprepared" becomes "untainted by Washington"; "thin-skinned" becomes "honest." By laying these qualities bare for what they really are--serious flaws in character, judgment, and experience--Clinton is making a compelling case for people who were on the fence while in the same breath making a mockery of Trump's greatest "strengths."

And she is just. fucking. getting. started. You watch. Hillary Clinton has tenacity and poise in spades. She will continue hammering this message home every day. It will become the new media narrative. And what do you think that's going to do to Trump? The man is going to cry and shit his pants. In HD.
posted by duffell at 1:28 PM on June 2, 2016 [29 favorites]




“Trump says over and over again, ‘the world is laughing at us’. He’s been saying this for years.” [Clinton says he took out a full-page newspaper ad in 1987 saying the world is laughing at us.]

No Trump, they're laughing at you.
posted by bongo_x at 1:32 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Great speech.
Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas – just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.

He is not just unprepared – he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.

This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes – because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.

We cannot put the security of our children and grandchildren in Donald Trump’s hands. We cannot let him roll the dice with America.

This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia.

This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.

He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008.

He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture and the murder of civilians who are related to suspected terrorists – even though those are war crimes.

He says he doesn’t have to listen to our generals or our admirals, our ambassadors and other high officials, because he has – quote – “a very good brain.”

He also said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.” You know what? I don’t believe him.

He says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, and he has the gall to say that prisoners of war like John McCain aren’t heroes.

Exactly.

He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends – including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the president of Mexico and the Pope.

He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.

And to top it off, he believes America is weak. An embarrassment. He called our military a disaster. He said we are – and I quote – a “third-world country.” And he’s been saying things like that for decades.

Those are the words my friends of someone who doesn’t understand America or the world.

And they’re the words of someone who would lead us in the wrong direction. Because if you really believe America is weak – with our military, our values, our capabilities that no other country comes close to matching – then you don’t know America.

And you certainly don’t deserve to lead it.

That’s why – even if I weren’t in this race – I’d be doing everything I could to make sure Donald Trump never becomes President – because I believe he will take our country down a truly dangerous path.

posted by zarq at 1:35 PM on June 2, 2016 [29 favorites]


Also interesting that he started saying ‘the world is laughing at us’ in 1987, during Saint Reagan's "Morning in America".
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:36 PM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


“Trump says over and over again, ‘the world is laughing at us’.

He's right.

He's using the royal "us."
posted by AdamCSnider at 1:37 PM on June 2, 2016


Oh god. Sanders surrogate Susan Sarandon was going off about how there is going to be an indictment. Literally. She flat out said "there is going to be".
posted by Justinian at 1:38 PM on June 2, 2016


And what do you think that's going to do to Trump? The man is going to cry and shit his pants. In HD.

New plan: Let's do this for the next three months and, once he is thoroughly humiliated, turn on the cowards in the Republican Party who betrayed their country and even their principles in what may well be a world-historical level of craven worship of power.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:38 PM on June 2, 2016 [13 favorites]




"Some of the comments she referenced are so ignorant, incoherent or outrageous, it could be hard to believe they actually came out of the mouth of the GOP’s presidential nominee.

"But they literally did. All of them. See for yourself -- check out the lines from Clinton’s speech, and the Trump quotes behind them:

Trump Literally Said All Those Things
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:44 PM on June 2, 2016 [31 favorites]


I love that she and her team had that page ready to go.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 1:45 PM on June 2, 2016 [20 favorites]


Speaking of the media narrative turning against Trump

(HE DID)

So good.
posted by defenestration at 1:46 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Oh god. Sanders surrogate Susan Sarandon was going off about how there is going to be an indictment. Literally. She flat out said "there is going to be".

Yeah that seems to be the newest talking point in anti-Clinton fantasyland, coming from both the unhinged left and the unhinged right. I think the hope is that if they can make that the narrative, then, when there is not an indictment, they get to shout about CORRUPTION! THE FIX IS IN!

It's all just so goddam tiresome.
posted by dersins at 1:46 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Goddamn. Bravo to Clinton for bringing the hammer.
posted by Existential Dread at 1:47 PM on June 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


I think Trump just became the beta.
posted by duffell at 1:48 PM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Oh god. Sanders surrogate Susan Sarandon was going off about how there is going to be an indictment. Literally. She flat out said "there is going to be".

I have no love for Sarandon's rhetoric throughout this campaign, but it's probably a bit unfair to call her a Sanders surrogate. Unless I missed something, she's a prominent celebrity supporter who's appeared in some of his ads and not much else.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:48 PM on June 2, 2016


She also has introduced him at many events and such. Plus googling for "susan sarandon campaign surrogate" shows that she is regularly referred to in the mainstream media as a Bernie Sanders campaign surrogate. So I think it is justified. That said I know she does not represent everyone... but neither has the campaign distanced itself from her even though she regularly says nutty and inciting things.
posted by Justinian at 1:52 PM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Unless I missed something, she's a prominent celebrity supporter who's appeared in some of his ads and not much else.

I mean, that's kinda basically what a surrogate is.
posted by dersins at 1:52 PM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think Trump just became the beta.

Nah, he'll just have his own press conference with even more American flags, then declare himself better at foreign policy via twitter.
posted by peeedro at 1:55 PM on June 2, 2016


Has anyone posted the Simpsons screenshots where Lisa Simpson is elected after a Trump presidency? In 1999? If not, here you go.

Hillary and Lisa have a lot in common, come to think of it.
posted by emjaybee at 1:56 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sarandon said that goofy shit about a Trump presidency "bringing the revolution" if Sanders couldn't - calling her a surrogate is fair.
posted by EatTheWeak at 1:57 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


The world must understand that the United States will act decisively if necessary, including with military action, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon...

We need to take out [ISIS] strongholds in Iraq and Syria by intensifying the air campaign... We need to lash up with our allies, and ensure our intelligence services are working hand-in-hand to dismantle the global network that supplies money, arms, propaganda and fighters to the terrorists. We need to win the battle in cyberspace. And of course we need to strengthen our defenses here at home.

posted by junco at 1:58 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Not a hill I'm going to die on, but I feel like surrogate means more like a spokesperson or individual that can speak for the candidate in an official capacity. That said, their failure to distance themselves from her idiocy reflects poorly, and invites these kinds of criticisms even if she's not speaking for the campaign.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:59 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I love that she and her team had that page ready to go.

Yes. It's an interesting counterstrategy to Trump's rapidfire tweetstorms.

Cross-platform, overwhelming attacks in real time. It will probably be only hours until someone splices all the footage of Trump's quotes into Hillary's speech.

I don't particularly live in the brave new social media worlds and I'm not at all a communications person, but it seems like her team is figuring out a balance between the naturally image-conscious, staid and centralized communications strategies of previous cycles and the ultra-freewheeling, untamed or even out-of-control kind of things we've seen from Sen. Sanders' supporters (and from Donald Trump, in a somewhat different way).

I think they are learning how to harness and tap into the power of the internet in ways that can be broadly coordinated by the campaign -- how to help supporters be creative in somewhat directed (or at least, not counterproductive) ways.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:02 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I feel like surrogate means more like a spokesperson or individual that can speak for the candidate in an official capacity.

If they're speaking in official capacity we'd just say 'campaign spokesperson,' though, right? We wouldn't need another phrase. I've taken 'campaign surrogate' to be 'not officially employed by or volunteering for, and therefore not officially speaking for, but linked to a greater degree than J Random Opinion Writer.' It's a hard-to-define-term to acknowledge that campaigns find it useful to involve people to a degree just shy of being officially affiliated, for a variety of reasons.

It's also a relatively new phrase, I think, so I suspect people use it in different ways with different (and equally valid) meanings; I'm not saying you're wrong, just that that's not how I've understood it.
posted by cjelli at 2:07 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yes. It's an interesting counterstrategy to Trump's rapidfire tweetstorms.

How long until Trump is forced to hand the twitter password over to a comm team? Has there been any discussion of that?
posted by Think_Long at 2:12 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


That speech is goddamn glorious.

Everybody who said in prior threads that Hillary is uniquely prepared to deal with a bloviating male of Trump's build ought to feel really fucking validated right now. That's withering in a way none of the Republican candidates had the competence to construct or deliver. If we get five months of this, suddenly I'm a little more okay with five more months of electioneering.
posted by rorgy at 2:13 PM on June 2, 2016 [45 favorites]


"Not a hill I'm going to die on, but I feel like surrogate means more like a spokesperson or individual that can speak for the candidate in an official capacity. "

No, the whole point of a surrogate -- as opposed to a spokesman -- is that your surrogate can say things the candidate CAN'T say without getting in trouble. You recruit surrogates to do your ugly attack work for you so you can avoid negative campaigning and your campaign isn't held accountable for it. One of the most popular tasks for surrogates is to suggest that various ugly rumors and innuendos are true, which keeps them hot in the media, without the candidate ever having to actually dignify them.

(They can also praise you in ways you can't praise yourself without transgressing social norms, and speak to groups your word doesn't carry much weight with when theirs does, but the most popular use of the word is for your technically-unaffiliated negative campaigners.)

One of the ways you could tell Kasich's campaign wasn't going anywhere was his total lack of willing surrogates from Ohio state government to do his dirty work or talk him up. Obama was short on surrogates early on in 2008 because he had had such a short tenure in national politics, but luckily he had Dick Durbin who's a pretty frequent and formidable surrogate for Democrats running at the national level as well as the state level.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:13 PM on June 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


How long until Trump is forced to hand the twitter password over to a comm team? Has there been any discussion of that?

Cold, dead, tiny hands.
posted by maudlin at 2:14 PM on June 2, 2016 [19 favorites]


(I speak from having worked in campaigns, and having run my own, where I and/or the campaign had to recruit surrogates. It's sort-of like your anger interpreter, they say all the sort-of pissed off stuff you WISH you could say to the press but would get you in trouble.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:15 PM on June 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


From the speech:

"During the raid to kill bin Laden, when every second counted, our SEALs took the time to move the women and children in the compound to safety."

True? Or at least, true to what we know of the raid? This is the first I'd heard of it. And it would certainly make me feel better.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:15 PM on June 2, 2016


That speech is goddamn glorious.

Everybody who said in prior threads that Hillary is uniquely prepared to
be the President of the United States ought to feel really fucking validated right now.

ftfy
posted by Dashy at 2:21 PM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


(I have no clue whether Susan Sarandon is a Bernie surrogate or not and have no opinion on that, but if the Bernie campaign were like "yep she's officially part of the campaign" she would then by definition NOT be a surrogate. The whole point of them is that because they're unofficial, the campaign can avoid confirming or denying whatever bombs they drop, leaving them free to drop bigger and crazier bombs and float weirder trial balloons. If they go over well, the candidate will often adopt that rhetoric slightly later on. (See also: Joe Biden's "gaffes" that Obama later adopts.) It should be murky whether a surrogate's opinions are endorsed by the candidate and campaign. If it's clear, they're not surrogating very well, at least when their job is to go negative and attack opponents.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:23 PM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


It's funny. I've heard a lot of people talk about how the last person we want running against Trump is a policy wonk who knows how to back up her talking points with raw data. And I just sort of...... went along with that narrative. Like, okay, yeah, sure, Americans get bored by people knowing what they're talking about. Americans like angry, entertaining people.

But that's bullshit, isn't it? People still read Hunter S. Thompson's Nixon obituary. They still quote Mencken with fervor. I still recommend Matt Taibbi's Thomas Friedman takedowns to everybody I meet. I still excerpt David Foster Wallace's savaging of John Updike on a bimonthly basis.

We fetishize Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson, men who smugly point out their own intelligence, and run wild with their clever put-downs. We watch Zero Punctuation reviews. We made a nation-wide meme out of Simon Cowell's snide contempt. We watch South Park. We watched The West Wing.

Americans hate elitism when it's ostensibly targeted their way, sure. But they sure as shit like elitism when it's running their way. Donald Trump's done a great job of talking up how great he is, how great he'll make America, and people flock to him because they think he's better than people. But Hillary Clinton is actually elite. And she's willing to let anybody in the country get on board with her brand of better-than-you.

She's not gonna be Obama-style lofty. She's gonna be debate-champion stat-wonk "The second you stop talking is the second I rip you apart." And she's going up against a man whose only experience so far is against Marco "the truth is we know exactly" Rubio, Jeb "please clap" Bush, and Ted "Ted Cruz" Cruz.

If the rest of her general run is half as good as this speech was, she's gonna clean house. And I'm legitimately curious how she'll handle debates against Trump.
posted by rorgy at 2:24 PM on June 2, 2016 [21 favorites]


"During the raid to kill bin Laden, when every second counted, our SEALs took the time to move the women and children in the compound to safety."

True? Or at least, true to what we know of the raid? This is the first I'd heard of it. And it would certainly make me feel better.


According to the Wikipedia page one version has them zip-tie the women and children, move them outside after securing the building and leaving them for Pakistani security forces. One woman was killed and one wounded during the initial assault, apparently. The position of the noncombatants and the casualties appear to have been independently confirmed afterwards by a Pakistani officer who arrived after the raid.

So yeah, they went to the effort in a situation where there was plenty else to do (getting their hands on files and computer disks, destroying the damaged helicopter, etc.) and not much time to do it (they had to be out of there before the locals raised the alarm and security forces arrived).
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:24 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton is the only candidate still in this race acting presidential. Trump and Sanders are mostly just acting out at this point. (Unless O'Malley's still in? He was doing a solid 2004 version of presidential in those first debates.)
posted by EatTheWeak at 2:26 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I would love Clinton to just double down hard on the war crimes thing. Trump has literally advocated for torture and for murdering civilians, both of which would get you imprisoned at The Hague. He walked those positions back, but the base loves this blood-raw red meat and doesn't want to see him admit to flip-flopping to be "soft on terror".

Pinning him down at a debate -- did you mean what you said when you declared that we should commit war crimes? -- would be amazing to watch. What's his response going to be? He used to think war crimes were great in February, but not anymore? He actually has a secret war crimes plan that's even better? Torture is super cool?
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:30 PM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Y'know what I love about her references to the bin Laden raid? She doesn't try to take credit for any of it. She cites her experience and her presence, absolutely -- as she should! -- but this is not her trying to say she was a deciding factor. At all. (People will try to spin it that way, of course, but that doesn't hold up to an actual read of the text.) So many politicians would try to show how they were so critically important to the whole thing.

She gives Obama all the credit for that.

And then I think about Sanders's tweet cited by dw in the previous election thread: I do think that we can fulfill the legacy of presidents F.D.R., Truman, and L.B.J. and guarantee health care for all people as a right. ...and, as noted, who isn't included on Sanders's list.

Justinian is right: Sanders couldn't have delivered a speech like this in a million years.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:33 PM on June 2, 2016 [19 favorites]


Re Hillary's San Diego speech - what is the earliest possible date I can obtain my vote by mail ballot for the general election.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 2:33 PM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


He used to think war crimes were great in February, but not anymore?

kissinger talked him out of it
posted by beerperson at 2:42 PM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


"He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia" should become the "I can see Russia from my house" of this election.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:47 PM on June 2, 2016 [21 favorites]


My only wish for David French is that he sticks to an all NRO ticket and picks Mark Helprin to be his running mate and then that the VP debate opens with him shouting:
ALL RIVERS RUN FULL TO THE SEA; THOSE WHO ARE APART ARE BROUGHT TOGETHER; THE LOST ONES ARE REDEEMED; THE DEAD COME BACK TO LIFE; THE PERFECTLY BLUE DAYS THAT HAVE BEGUN AND ENDED IN GOLDEN DIMNESS CONTINUE, IMMOBILE AND ACCESSIBLE; AND, WHEN ALL IS PERCEIVED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO OBVIATE TIME, JUSTICE BECOMES APPARENT NOT AS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE, BUT SOMETHING THAT IS.
posted by creade at 2:48 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is Trump even capable of responding to a speech like this? With something other than word salad, I mean. I wonder if Hillary has had some consultant or expert give her some sort of psychological profile on Trump that outlines a plan for causing a total screaming shitfit of a meltdown, and this is her first volley.

I'm suddenly getting a premonition of the long coming months of the election season, where Hillary just relentlessly, calmly, and thoroughly dismantles every single idiot thing Trump says, revealing it for the actual dangerously ignorant lunacy that it is. I only wish I had any faith at all that it would make a difference to the diehard GOP and/or Trump supporters. Every time I think I understand how very deep the anti-intellectual, anti-expertise, anti-elite well goes, I'm proven wrong. I hope this is a successful bid for a 70-30 landslide, I really do. But it seems like there's a dismayingly large percentage of the population that just wants what amounts to literal know-nothing fascism.
posted by yasaman at 2:50 PM on June 2, 2016 [10 favorites]




ALL RIVERS RUN FULL TO THE SEA; THOSE WHO ARE APART ARE BROUGHT TOGETHER; THE LOST ONES ARE REDEEMED; THE DEAD COME BACK TO LIFE; THE PERFECTLY BLUE DAYS THAT HAVE BEGUN AND ENDED IN GOLDEN DIMNESS CONTINUE, IMMOBILE AND ACCESSIBLE; AND, WHEN ALL IS PERCEIVED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO OBVIATE TIME, JUSTICE BECOMES APPARENT NOT AS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE, BUT SOMETHING THAT IS.

That reminds me so very much of this.
posted by dersins at 2:53 PM on June 2, 2016


Re: Rick Perry's statement... At a time when Hannibal Lecter is one of our most 'beloved antiheroes', emulating him is not necessarily a bad move politically.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:00 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Creepiness aside, Perry certainly knows a thing or two (but not three) about having trouble during debates.
NICE
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:02 PM on June 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'm suddenly getting a premonition of the long coming months of the election season, where Hillary just relentlessly, calmly, and thoroughly dismantles every single idiot thing Trump says, revealing it for the actual dangerously ignorant lunacy that it is.
I hate to be relentlessly cynical, but I think the media can't let that happen, because nobody will watch it. So we'll see a lot of manufactured controversy and drama designed to make it look like it's a close race and Trump is a serious candidate, because "everyone knows who is the better candidate, and everyone knows who is going to win" is not going to get ratings or page views.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:02 PM on June 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


At last we learn the secret to Rick Perry's (AKA Governor Good Hair) beauty regime: he peels and eats the skin of human women.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:03 PM on June 2, 2016


I took Perry for a Bolton bannerman instead of a Lecter stan. Or maybe he was just trying for Swiftian wit: "Last week I saw a woman flayed, and you will hardly believe how much it altered her person for the worse."
posted by maudlin at 3:04 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Imagine Donald Trump sitting in the Situation Room, making life-or-death decisions on behalf of the United States. Imagine him deciding whether to send your spouse or children into battle...

I think it's worth recording, for posterity, that there was laughter at this line, which quickly died down. Like "HA HA HA what a proposal! The very idea is... oh. Oh, that is literally the alternative, isn't it? Oh dear God."
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 3:10 PM on June 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Yeah, I figured as much, ArbitraryAndCapricious. My antipathy for the majority of mainstream media has reached such heights that I'm left with just "flames...on the side of my face...burning...."
posted by yasaman at 3:13 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm not totally sure if it was linked upthread, but Clinton's San Diego foreign policy speech can be watched here. I voted for Bernie Sanders, but have always admired Clinton's debate performance this election cycle, and this is getting me pretty hyped for watching her destroy Trump (assuming he doesn't have a temper tantrum and backs out of debates).
posted by mostly vowels at 3:13 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


It would be wonderful to watch her do this in every single stump speech from now until November. Just relentlessly tear him apart day after day, using his own words.
posted by zarq at 3:17 PM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


If Trump does that, literally all Hillary has to do is smile and say, "Hm. Guess he's scared of me."
posted by yasaman at 3:17 PM on June 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


BURN

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

Bad performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton! Reading poorly from the telepromter! She doesn't even look presidential!
3:18 PM - 2 Jun 2016

Hillary Clinton ✔ @HillaryClinton

Imagine if he had not just his Twitter account at his disposal when he’s angry, but America’s entire arsenal. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/738449664752553984
3:34 PM - 2 Jun 2016
posted by lalex at 3:25 PM on June 2, 2016 [28 favorites]


kissinger talked him out of it

When Henry Kissinger is like "hey man, maybe you're going a little bit too far?" it's time to re-evaluate your life. Trump, of course, has no capacity for self reflection.

Imagine him deciding whether to send your spouse or children into battle...

And this is the tack we need to take to win over disgruntled Sanders supporters I think. If that doesn't convince them I don't think anything would.
posted by Justinian at 3:25 PM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Bad performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton! Reading poorly from the telepromter! She doesn't even look presidential!

"besides i'm here to tell you that people can get killed over golf course deals in new jersey"
posted by pyramid termite at 3:30 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Imagine if he had not just his Twitter account at his disposal when he’s angry, but America’s entire arsenal.

Love it, but it's kind of a missed opportunity to use a word with a more needling subtext than "angry," though. Something like:
Imagine if he had not just his Twitter account at his disposal when he’s angry he has a tantrum, but America’s entire arsenal. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/738449664752553984
posted by dersins at 3:35 PM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


yasaman: I hope this is a successful bid for a 70-30 landslide, I really do.

Surely you meant 73-27?
posted by RedOrGreen at 3:42 PM on June 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Well, this year we're likely to see how much the Crazification Factor has grown from 27%.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:45 PM on June 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


hey other countries

sorry about this Trump business but I strongly recommend you watch HRC's foreign policy speech. It's great if one likes clever wonky take-downs firmly rooted in substance, and more importantly it's sort of that knee to Trump's groin that we've all been waiting for
posted by angrycat at 3:57 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


also, I realized just now that my dream job is writing jabs for Clinton regarding Trump. Oh man. That makes my mouth water.
posted by angrycat at 3:59 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's VERY smart for her to be making a dominance play right now. By addressing Trump's weakness, and his perception of the United States as weak, she also addresses the elephant in the room—the fact that people consider a woman "too weak" to act as executive of the United States:

And to top it off, he believes America is weak. An embarrassment. He called our military a disaster. He said we are – and I quote – a “third-world country.” And he’s been saying things like that for decades.
posted by mynameisluka at 4:02 PM on June 2, 2016 [19 favorites]


Who's all left on team #NeverTrump now?

Keep an eye on Sasse. He's one of the few the holdouts are looking to that isn't known well outside of conservative circles.
posted by corb at 4:04 PM on June 2, 2016


Donald Trump furnishes statistical proof of Obama's many policy failures via a series of unlabeled and unsourced graphs.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:17 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Nice charts there.

My favorite was "Labor Force Particpation", until I saw "Black Inequality". Yes, that is a trivially quantifiable thing.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:25 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump's response to far is to remind us that he has so little use of a teleprompter that he can't even spell it.

"If you’re running for president, you shouldn't be allowed to use a teleprompter."
"I say we should outlaw teleprompters for anybody, right? -- for anybody -- for anybody running for president"
August 14, 2015: "If you’re running for president, you should not be allowed to use a teleprompter."
January 4, 2016: "I don't use teleprompters."

March 2016: Trump uses teleprompter in foreign policy speech. Earlier that same day: "I mean here's a women, it's [all] talk. [Hillary Clinton]'s just reading it off a teleprompter. Believe me, they write that for her."

He's also used a teleprompter on several other occasions. "We should have non-teleprompter speeches only when you're running for president." During a speech using teleprompters.

posted by kirkaracha at 4:27 PM on June 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Obviously measured in BIUs (Black Inequality Units).
posted by thefoxgod at 4:27 PM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Sasse. He's one of the few the holdouts are looking to

corb, are they really still looking for Another Magical Conservative Pony? I would think that the more serious of the NeverTrumpers would be coalescing around the relatively sane and experienced Libertarian ticket, no?
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:28 PM on June 2, 2016


Sally Kohn, a Bernie supporter, is on CNN right now lauding Hillary for her decades of supporting women's rights and feminist causes.
posted by Sophie1 at 4:28 PM on June 2, 2016 [21 favorites]


also, I realized just now that my dream job is writing jabs for Clinton regarding Trump.

Here you go. They're pretty much all HQ jobs for now, but I imagine they'll start staffing up in the states--especially the big battlegrounds--fairly soon.

Word of warning, though, if you haven't done campaign work before--the hours are fucking brutal.
posted by dersins at 4:35 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obviously measured in BIUs (Black Inequality Units).

Where 1 BIU = .03 Beyoncés per Buffett.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:35 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Fun Fact: Republicans simply have no idea what a teleprompter looks like. You could literally read "I've never used a teleprompter in my life!" off a teleprompter at the convention and no one would call you on it.

They know it exists as a concept, but are unaware of its physical manifestation in reality. It's like how I know that an exhaust manifold gasket is a thing, but I couldn't point one out to you to save my life. If a mechanic came up to me holding one and said "We're all out of exhaust manifold gaskets!", I would still believe them.
posted by 0xFCAF at 4:40 PM on June 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


Fun Fact: Republicans simply have no idea what a teleprompter looks like

Those aren't teleprompters! They're wordy screenies.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:45 PM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


wordy screenies

magic-ly changey pages
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:47 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


talk-paddles
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:48 PM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


In Trump’s case, he could tell his supporters that those were actually mirrors to look up women’s skirts and their approval would strengthen.
posted by nicepersonality at 4:51 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


> Ted "Ted Cruz" Cruz

Perfect.
posted by duffell at 5:03 PM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Maybe I'm just loopy from the meds because I'm feeling under the weather today but I feel... the opposite of depressed pessimism about the election. Or maybe just less depressed pessimism. But that's still a step forward!
posted by Justinian at 5:12 PM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


that speech was a great way to seal off the ridiculous Sanders-Trump debate talk from last week.
posted by zutalors! at 5:13 PM on June 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Some officials worry about briefing Trump, fearing spilled secrets


"Some U.S. intelligence officials are concerned that Donald Trump's "shoot from the hip" style could pose national security risks as they prepare to give him a routine pre-election briefing once he is formally anointed as the Republican presidential nominee.

Eight senior security officials told Reuters they had concerns over briefing Trump, whose brash, unpredictable campaign style has been a feature of his rise as an insurgent candidate. Despite their worries, the officials said the "Top Secret" briefing to each candidate would not deviate from the usual format to avoid any appearance of bias."

posted by Hairy Lobster at 5:25 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


That will probably be our only chance to find out about the alien spacecraft they're hiding in Fort Knox.
posted by mmoncur at 5:28 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Any intelligence briefing of Donald Trump must be conducted with the assumption that he will, of course, reveal everything.

But through a distorted proto-prism of half-formed semi-sentences that oddly defy any fact checking.
posted by yesster at 5:33 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Everybody who said in prior threads that Hillary is uniquely prepared to deal with a bloviating male of Trump's build ought to feel really fucking validated right now.

Me! Me!
posted by tavella at 5:35 PM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


So has there been any Trump reaction, other than twitter?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:37 PM on June 2, 2016


Probably some crying and curling into a fetal position but nothing in public.
posted by Justinian at 5:41 PM on June 2, 2016


Some officials worry about briefing Trump, fearing spilled secrets
"The only candidate who has proven incapable of handling sensitive information is Hillary Clinton," said Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "If there is anyone they should be worried about it is Hillary Clinton."
Translated:
"Nuh-uh" said Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "Nanny nanny boo-boo. I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!"
posted by kirkaracha at 5:43 PM on June 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


$5 says as soon as Trump gets his classified briefing, he's going to use it to justify saying all sorts of insane shit. How will Clinton respond to him lying about what's in that briefing?

"I can tell you this, because the FBI* told me it, the FBI told me that -- this is true -- Crooked Hillary Clinton has been talking to China about how to sell us out. She's going to sell us out, the FBI says, to China, the FBI told me this and it is true. I can beat China and the FBI agrees with me. They told me not to tell you but I have to tell you that they told me to tell you that I can tell you this."

* CIA, FBI, who cares, I'm a very important person and I've been told a lot of things that I already knew were true.
posted by 0xFCAF at 5:43 PM on June 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Trump is straight-up saying that the judge in the Trump University case should recuse himself, because he's Mexican-American, and being Mexican-American represents a conflict of interest:
Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation given that he was "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. "I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest," Mr. Trump said.
(That's the WSJ, and it's paywalled, but for some reason I got in when I googled it.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:54 PM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


so he doesn't know the difference between a mexican and an american of mexican ancestry?

well, that's very reassuring isn't it?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:58 PM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Does this surprise you?
posted by dersins at 6:01 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


It’s not that he doesn’t know, it’s that he doesn’t care. Not that that makes it any better.
posted by nicepersonality at 6:02 PM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


From William Saletan at Slate, "Trump’s Attack on a Federal Judge Is an Open Appeal to Racism":
Let’s recap. At least five times in the past year, the candidate who is now the Republican nominee for president has implied that certain public officials are suspect, or are acting against the national interest, because they or their family members are Latino. This isn’t a complaint about illegal immigrants. It’s not even a dog whistle. It’s a straight-up appeal to prejudice. It’s about the color of your skin, the sound of your last name, and where your ancestors came from.

[...]

If you can’t imagine a strongman coming to power in this country by mounting an ethnic propaganda campaign against minorities, wake up. This is what it looks like.

[...]

Trump’s attack on Curiel is a warning, not just about who Trump is but also about how blasé we’ve become. On Sunday, Trump’s chief strategist, Paul Manafort, and his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, were interviewed on major network news shows. Neither one was asked about Trump’s tirade against the judge. Meanwhile, Republican senators shilled for Trump as usual. Overt race-baiting has become normalized.

This is how it happens. It happens when you’re not looking. It happens because you weren’t looking.
posted by mhum at 6:04 PM on June 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


why can't there be some kind of anti-trump who will mistake him for an orange and shove him into a juicer?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:05 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


It doesn't exactly surprise me, but it horrifies me. We do not have ethnic qualifications for judges.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:07 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah I don't know why we always have to be surprised just to talk about things on the Internet.
posted by zutalors! at 6:08 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


We do not have ethnic qualifications for judges.

We do if Trump gets in.
posted by Artw at 6:18 PM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border.

In other words, his prejudice against Mexicans is justified because... he is prejudiced against Mexicans.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 6:30 PM on June 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


" I'm seeing a move in the opposite direction with republican business clients I work with. They are revolted by Hillary but think Donald could break the country."

Yeah, I'm hearing a lot of "I don't agree with Clinton's policy positions but at least they're all within the realm of plannable possibilities where tax rates and regulation will be relatively predictable and I understand how the government will respond to economic crises and I can continue to do business with my foreign suppliers." Like definitely they'll complain bitterly about the unbearable onus of Democratic overregulation, but it's a climate in which they can do business. A lot of them are uncomfortable about whether they can reasonably continue to do business as usual under Trump, especially the ones who deal a lot with foreign markets. There's also a lot of fear of the stock market reacting to Trump by crashing.

I also know a lot of suburban Republican mom-types, who are typically less culture-war engaged, just more naturally conservative because they live relatively privileged lives in which institutions work pretty well, and for a lot of them Donald Trump is just not remotely an option. They're not delighted about Clinton necessarily, but the House GOP saying "but abortion regulations!" is just not an issue that will motivate them, because they're a lot more concerned about "but a crazy racist might get the nuclear codes!" (Also lot of them, relatively cosmopolitan, are hugely turned off by the racism and misogyny on the Trump side.) Again, Clinton operates within the realm of the predictable where they can be pretty sure their kids' schools won't close and there won't be vigilante militias showing up in their town squares to police local immigrants; paying higher tax rates seems like a reasonably fair trade for not going to war with Mexico because Trump wakes up grumpy.

I know these sorts of cosmopolitan, moderate Republicans who aren't also motivated by an ideological commitment to conservative ideology or a cultural commitment to the religious right are a shrinking part of the coalition and a lot of them already jumped to the Democrats over the last 8 years, or started identifying as independents, but they're still out there and while I think a lot of them will vote for their GOP Congresscritters, I don't think Trump can make the sale, pretty much no matter what.

And I do think it will be interesting to watch Republicans in the House (and elsewhere) who represent relatively wealthy, educated areas and who have competitive races (not all of them do!) to see if and how they run away from Trump. Bob Dold in Illinois is a big one (Obama won his district by close to 20 points, IIRC) -- he has a relatively solid Dem opponent with reasonably good name recognition, and lives in one of the wealthiest parts of Illinois; Trump can only hurt him. The GOP governor of Massachusetts is another big one. I think Mark Kirk (Illinois junior senator) made a huge strategic error by deciding to endorse Trump in the face of a very strong Democratic opponent, but I guess time will tell on that one -- he thinks he has more to gain from ultraconservative/reactionary Illinoisians by backing Trump than he has to lose from moderate Illinoisians by denouncing him; I think his electoral math is the wrongest of the wrong. I think watching these Republicans with relatively moderate coalitions, or relatively wealthy, educated, and cosmopolitan bases, and seeing if and how they use or avoid Trump, will be really instructive as to whether Trump can capture moderate Republicans or not.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:36 PM on June 2, 2016 [23 favorites]


I should not make predictions, but I feel like Mark Kirk is a goner. This was going to be a tough election for him even without the Trump mishegas, and I can't think of any way that he can play the Trump situation to his advantage.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:41 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Jesus, I hope journalists start doing their job and asking GOP elected officials about Judge Curiel. Do you agree with Trump that Mexican-American judges cannot preside in cases against Trump? Do you think fairness dictates that Trump get only a white judge? Is this for Trump only, or in general, should judge's ethnicity be something a defendant gets to veto?
posted by skewed at 7:31 PM on June 2, 2016 [32 favorites]


Trump is giving an absolutely unhinged speech right now.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:35 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think Republican congress critters have made their own bed and are now going to be forced to lie in it but I also don't envy them in the delicate path they are going to have to tread.

Senators with 6 year terms can probably run away from Trump and assuming they still win reelection (which is definitely in doubt for several) they can probably hope that memories are short and all will be forgiven in 6 years and if not there is always a lucrative lobbyist job in the not so distant future.

The Republican congressmen are in a more delicate position because the Teahadists have much more clout in the House and with 2 year terms there is a decent chance that they will be primaried from the right if they don't fall in line. Considering the majority of these Republicans represent safe Republican districts the bigger risk to their career is attacks from their own base. This seems to be why the bulk of the house leadership seems to be at least somewhat embracing Trump even though they think he's a godawful candidate.

In the relatively small number of actually competitive districts with a Republican incumbent the calculus is extremely challenging because normally it would be an incredibly easy process to just run against the President but right now you see Obama steadily gaining popularity and the primary thing Republicans have been predicting doom about for 6 years is also becoming more and more popular.

Add on a fucking tire fire for a national standard bearer and the likelihood that the RNC is going to have to commit massive resource to shore up what will probably be a losing Trump campaign because if they don't shore him up things could get really really bad for Republicans in the fall and things are looking pretty bad for generic Republican in competitive district. In general they still have very significant funding advantages and it looks like the Kochs for example are prepared to fund Super PACs to an insane level but it's still a bad position to be in.

What will be very interesting is to see what retired but still active Republicans will do moving forward. Will the Bushes change face and promote Trump or will they undermine him in the hopes of running Jeb again in 2020? Will Romney change face or will he simply disappear and hope for a Trump failure?

Still it's going to be extremely funny to see all these Republicans have to say they support Trump in public interview which will probably result in all sorts of grimaces like McCain delivered and then see their endorsements used in attack ads over and over.
posted by vuron at 7:36 PM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump is giving an absolutely unhinged speech right now.

You are not joking. This is weird, even by Trump's standards.
posted by sporkwort at 7:38 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Link? Transcript? How unhinged, exactly?
posted by palomar at 7:39 PM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Skewed- Obviously racial purity test should be a necessary precondition for public service. You should have to show that you have pure Aryan blood uncontaminated by Jewish... err Latino (or African American) blood for at least 4 generations back on both sides.

Furthermore in case that a Latino try to pass themselves off as Aryan there should be some sort of identifying tag mandated be displayed at all times on their clothing.

I realize that I'm Godwinning of course but at this point in time I'm not sure that being seen as Neo-Nazi wouldn't be seen as desirable among some parts of the Trump base.
posted by vuron at 7:41 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


explicit neo-nazi sentiment would have meant Paul Ryan waited until July to endorse.
posted by skewed at 7:42 PM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


found a youtube live feed for the Trump here.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:46 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


(speech starts at about an hour into the feed; it looks like he's been going for a solid hour now.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:49 PM on June 2, 2016


I can't stand his face any more, it's bad for my blood pressure, someone recap please.
posted by yasaman at 7:50 PM on June 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Is it wrong of me to want to see various Republicans photoshopped onto pictures of the Nazi elite moving forward as the Republicans slowly come to heel?

Obvious suggestions beyond Trump as Der Fuhrer would be Christie as Goering and supposed policy wonk Ryan as Speer but there is still room for more suggestions as we clearly need someone clearly off his gourd to play Hess, backtabbing toadies to play Himmler and Bormann, a true believer to play Goebels, etc.

I typically think going with the godwin is heavy handed in the extreme but I think we should be willing to pull no punches in order to undermine Trump because he really would be that fucking awful.
posted by vuron at 7:52 PM on June 2, 2016


I don't know how much of it I can deal with, so far it's mostly boilerplate idiocy of an unexceptional sort. He called Hillary's speech pathetic a couple times so far.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:53 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wow. He's desperate.
posted by palomar at 7:54 PM on June 2, 2016


I'm really surprised that no one has told him that constantly saying "believe me" marks him as a liar.
posted by palomar at 7:56 PM on June 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


Trump wants Clinton put in jail, for one thing. It's sort of fuzzy on whether or not this is e-mail related or due to her speech this afternoon.

On MSNBC actual violence between Trumpists and protesters.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:58 PM on June 2, 2016


Trump, talking to the screaming hordes wanting to attack a protester: "Don't hurt him. See? I learned!"
posted by palomar at 8:00 PM on June 2, 2016


So how terrible a person am I if I want Hillary to wage a campaign of such exactingly devastating jabs at Trump's perilously fragile masculinity that he descends into literal madness

I mean, more mad than he already is, I'm talking full on breakdown at the debate podium madness. What's the over-under on that happening.
posted by yasaman at 8:02 PM on June 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


eh, I got bored. I can't listen to a whole hour of trump word salad.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:02 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


So, if his head literally exploded, scanners style, during one of these, and he hasn't picked a running mate, what's the legal precedent there? Do the democrats win by default?
posted by Artw at 8:03 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump, talking to the screaming hordes wanting to attack a protester: "Don't hurt him. See? I learned!"

He's pathetic.
posted by inconsequentialist at 8:03 PM on June 2, 2016


If the rest of the election is going to be more of Hillary winding up the vulgar talking yam and getting him to sputter and flail and rage like he is tonight... I'm so into it.
posted by palomar at 8:06 PM on June 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


Like, Trump supporters leaving the rally being attacked by/attacking protesters.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:08 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Keep in mind this represents Trumps attempts to pivot to the center for general election mode. The guy has already be elected king of the madhouse but instead of pretending to be sane in order to appeal to centrist voters he continues to just double down on the wacky rhetoric that just reinforces Hillary's core message in the speech that Trump isn't someone you should trust to mow your lawn much less make the Commander in Chief.

Trump has as much as said that he actually intends to delegate the actually details of governance to a subordinate because he simply can't be bothered.

This is not someone that will treat the office with any sort of dignity. This is the sort of guy wow would probably redecorate the oval office with leopard skin print carpet, lots and lots of gold plated everything and a tasteful nude of himself on a bear skin rug.
posted by vuron at 8:12 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


...then declare bankruptcy the moment he gets in trouble.
posted by Artw at 8:13 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump: "WHO WILL PAY FOR THE WALL?"
Crowd: "MEXICO!"
Trump: "WHO WILL PAY FOR THE WALL?"
Crowd: *louder* "MEXICO!"
Holy shit. It's like watching fascism in slow motion.
posted by Talez at 8:14 PM on June 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


Yeah, watching MSNBC now. This isn't okay.

There's a line of cops moving forward, I think to allow cars to get out of the parking garage? Honestly, they're being pretty restrained given the way the tone feels. It doesn't seem like there's any people in the group of protestors who are trying to keep things civil and peaceful. (I know it's hard to read without being there. But I wouldn't feel okay being in that crowd.)

There was at least one Trump supporter that just about got his ass kicked before he was able to get through to the police line. I'm not sure how he ended up in the crowd in the first place. It looks like at least some of the protestors were trying to shield him as he was being chased, so there's that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:17 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


He's a fascist fucking demagogue. It's so unbelievably naked and these people are shooting it up like fucking heroin.
posted by Talez at 8:17 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's such an easy Godwinning, but his version of what "looks Presidential" looks a lot more "Fuhrer-ial".
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:18 PM on June 2, 2016


Well, of course they're shooting it up like heroin. He's giving them license to be as vocal as they've always wanted to be in their hatred of others. He's reaping what the GOP has sown for how many decades now?
posted by palomar at 8:19 PM on June 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Protesters getting violent is NOT good. I wish everyone could dial that shit back. The violence is inherently bad unto itself, and it will also help Trump more than it hurts.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:23 PM on June 2, 2016 [30 favorites]


It's horrifying. People are milling around and then someone spots a (maybe?) Trump supporter and suddenly there are dozens of people chasing the person down.

They're pointing out that it's a pretty young crowd (the protestors). I was thinking that as well -- it seems like half of them are high schoolers.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:27 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


The whole issue of Godwinning was about falsely accusing people of being nazis. THIS is why it was important not to Godwin, not to cry wolf, because now we have an actual wolf on the podium and it's fucking terrifying. It's terrifying even if he doesn't win because he has stirred up the Volk and they want to blame their fucked up little lives on someone. I would've bet it was going to be Muslims, but it's looking like it'll be Hispanics this time.

I find myself spending more and more time thinking about the people who got out of Germany before '39. It must've been scary to drop everything and leave your life, family & friends behind for the unknown. But I'm starting to seriously consider the same thing. Do I wait until November? I think Hillary is going to win by a landslide, but what if she doesn't?
posted by gofargogo at 8:34 PM on June 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think it seems inevitable that a Trump rally will inevitably result in tragedy because someone escalates stuff to the point where deadly force is used instead of just throwing punches. I understand that Trump needs to be stopped but escalating the situation with violence is simply not the way forward.

If you are going to protest Trump you need to follow the example of Gandhi and King and prepare yourself to meet violence with non-violence and hatred with compassion otherwise you really aren't doing anyone any favors with the possible exception of Trump who would most likely use tragedy at a rally as a way of somehow tarnishing all protestors as dangerous communists or something.
posted by vuron at 8:36 PM on June 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Oh, this is helpful, as reported by Katy Tur of NBC: Who is your candidate? "There is no candidate" Who are you? "Anarchists" - @Jacobnbc describes protesters

Podesta has issued a statement: Violence against supporters of any candidate has no place in this election.

Jacob Rascon of NBC seems to be in the middle of it right now.
posted by maudlin at 8:37 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


If you are going to protest Trump you need to follow the example of Gandhi and King and prepare yourself to meet violence with non-violence and hatred with compassion

Right, but those men did not exist in a vacuum. One reason King succeeded is that the alternative wasn't the status quo, it was Malcolm X. Gandhi was similar.
posted by Justinian at 8:39 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Podesta has issued a statement: Violence against supporters of any candidate has no place in this election.

This is how you condemn things. Not "violence or threats in Nevada have no place, but that's what happens when you have a corrupt and rigged system."
posted by Justinian at 8:40 PM on June 2, 2016 [18 favorites]


Sigh. There is no protest so bad that Black Bloc idiots can't make it worse.
posted by tavella at 8:41 PM on June 2, 2016 [17 favorites]


Protestors bringing the violence to Trumpsters are the one thing that can HELP the Orange Fascist most right now.

Prediction: the most used sound-bite of Trump today will be "Don't hurt him. See? I learned!"
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:42 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


But on the brighter side, I guess we'll get to see exactly what happens when you heighten the fucking contradictions.
posted by maudlin at 8:45 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Shit. Well, at least they're identifying as known assholes not attached to a campaign.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:47 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, Jacob Rascon was live broadcasting on MSNBC until a couple minutes ago when they cut away to regular programming again.

I... maybe there are some black bloc idiot types there. But I think it is more the other end of the spectrum, kids that really don't have any direction (in this moment) and are hyped up on a toxic mix of adrenaline and (righteous) anger.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:47 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


You can mark down June 2, 2016 as the day I felt bad for (a few) Trump rally attendees.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:54 PM on June 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Is it Tivalasvegas Felt Bad For (A Few) Trump Rally Attendees Day again already? Man, it comes earlier every year, I swear.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:57 PM on June 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


yeah it follows an ancient lunar calendar
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:02 PM on June 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


I mean, more mad than he already is, I'm talking full on breakdown at the debate podium madness. What's the over-under on that happening.

nope, no way, i'm holding out for a massive fatal stroke as he shrieks and rants and stamps his feet and waves his comically small fists like a furious gassy bloated orange toddler
posted by poffin boffin at 9:03 PM on June 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


I dunno, I think I feel bad for all of them every day.
posted by museum of fire ants at 9:04 PM on June 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


a massive fatal stroke as he shrieks and rants

No, that's just creating a martyr (this is the king of the birthers, do you really think that they wouldn't start the most huge conspiracy theories)?

What I have in mind is, I realize, this scene:
To different members of the audience the change came differently. To Frost it began at the moment when he heard Jules end a sentence with the words "as gross an anachronism as to trust to calvary for salvation in modern war". Cavalry, thought Frost. Why couldn't the fool mind what he was saying. Perhaps-but hallo! what was this? Jules seemed to be saying that the future density of mankind depended on the implosion of the horses of Nature. "He's drunk," thought Frost. Then, crystal clear in articulation, beyond all possibility of mistake, came "The madrigore of verjuice must be talthibianised."
(source: CS Lewis, That Hideous Strength)
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:19 PM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is there a chance Hillary brought out the hammer too soon?

If Trump has a meltdown now, there's still the convention for the RNC to regroup and select a different standard-bearer.
posted by yesster at 9:20 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I imagine Hillary Clinton would prefer not to be running against Trump for multiple reasons including the risk that she might lose and Trump would be in office.
posted by R343L at 9:21 PM on June 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


I was just about to link that image, tivalasvegas. That's beyond fucked up. Clinton's speech should have been the story of the day but instead, more bullshit mob violence. It kills me every time. As if any given mob is the first one to have the idea that going outside the rule of law to achieve their goals is gonna be the end of it. The level of rage floating around right now is freaking me out. Americans shouldn't be this furious with other Americans. I'm starting to wish all newscasts opened with a content warning like "while your disagreements with each other are real and valid, for the duration of this broadcast please remember that your political opponents are United States citizens who love their babies and everyone gets scared sometimes."

Something like that. I wish we could have given Fred Rogers super soldier serum. I guess my version of becoming an Old is to be freaked out that cohorts who grew up without Fred Rogers are now out there trying to be citizens.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:24 PM on June 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


Can you just imagine the complete and utter shitshow, though, if the RNC drops Trump at this point for any reason?
posted by palomar at 9:24 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Dallas Morning News: Greg Abbott’s top consumer attorneys built a $5.4M case against Donald Trump, but it never happened
AUSTIN — The state’s consumer protection division, working for then-Attorney General Greg Abbott, sought permission in May 2010 to pursue what it believed was a strong case to sue Donald Trump and Trump University for bilking Texas taxpayers out of more than $2.6 million.

But that lawsuit was never filed.

Instead, the investigation Abbott had opened into the now-defunct real estate training program and Trump, now the presumptive Republican nominee for president, was dropped and Trump University agreed to cease operations in Texas.

The former deputy director of Abbott’s Consumer Protection Division now alleges that the attorney general office’s decision to quash the lawsuit against Trump — later a major donor to Abbott’s campaign — was a political move that left Texas consumers “high and dry.”
Maybe once the press gets to the bottom of Whitewater and Benghazi they can start pulling some threads on this?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:27 PM on June 2, 2016 [25 favorites]


Nah, this is where they start accusing the FBI of going easy on Clinton for political reasons.
posted by bardophile at 9:32 PM on June 2, 2016


I would love it if the media were sitting on all these awful Trump stories in case they needed them later on, but were ignoring them in the happy smiley primary horserace phase. There's gotta be a point where the ratings are less important than Trump actually having power.

Right?

Right?!?

Oh dear God I might throw up...
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:39 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Watch how fair and balanced they can get!
posted by Artw at 9:41 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump is a horrid little man.
posted by mazola at 9:44 PM on June 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't see why it has to end with the campaign. President Trump would be a ratings bonanza. Fresh disasters every day and clicks out the wazoo. Who knows? It could escalate to riots, sieges, maybe even a coup attempt. It'll be like war journalism, but everyone gets to play. News media will be more relevant than it's been since the sixties (1860's) and the advertisers will crawl a mile over glass to be a part of it.
posted by nom de poop at 9:58 PM on June 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Re: Hillary's timing. I think by pivoting to Trump she can look like the presumptive candidate without saying it, and by not attacking Bernie she allows him some space to cool down and find a way to put his support behind her in another week or so. He may not do that, but I would assume it would be easier to do it if her campaign wasn't attacking him right and left before he concedes.
posted by gofargogo at 10:02 PM on June 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Do you guys remember when everybody was preaching tolerance of things you hate and the idea of violence at a presidential campaign rally would be crazy? Good times, good times.
posted by corb at 10:16 PM on June 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


If there was one error in Hillary's timing, it was making this speech on a day when Trump had a rally scheduled just a couple hours later. Sure, he couldn't come up with a non-word-salad response, but toss in some violent "anti-Trump" protesters, and he gets a sympathy boost. Now, I'm not saying the protesters were fake, but I thought Trump's followers had the market cornered on violent response.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:17 PM on June 2, 2016


I don't think either Clinton or Sanders could have seen this in advance. This sounds like a serious escalation by assholes not affiliated with either camp. Trump will spin it as a plot, though. He'll cast himself as the victim...ignoring the actual victims, of course.

Trump will be the alpha victim.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:24 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Couldn't see that someone who denigrates Mexicans speaking in California — in effin' San Jose — would lead to violent protests? I mean, really? My husband has been there covering them, and they were packing the full kit (helmets, etc.), so I am pretty sure it was very expectable.
posted by dame at 10:31 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


almost planned
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:38 PM on June 2, 2016


Santa Clara county (incl. San Jose) voted 70% for Obama. Why would Trump even bother campaigning in the Bay Area?

Just go away. Everyone hates you here.
posted by ryanrs at 10:51 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Just caught the local CBS affiliate's clip of Trump's San Jose speech. Trump affected a stereotypical Hispanic accent while saying the word, "Latino."

Fuck this guy.
posted by jamaro at 11:09 PM on June 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Do you guys remember when everybody was preaching tolerance of things you hate and the idea of violence at a presidential campaign rally would be crazy? Good times, good times.

Cops stomping on hippies in 68? No, The Chicago Police Riot was at the democratic party convention, not a campaign rally...
posted by mikelieman at 11:25 PM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Do you guys remember when everybody was preaching tolerance of things you hate

...no?
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:32 PM on June 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


did that happen in the alternate universe where trump didn't run
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:50 PM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Between the racist rhetoric of Trump and the fact that white nationalist groups are drawn to Trump like moths to a flame this sort of thing seems inevitable. Personally I am halfway surprised that some open carry nutbags haven't started shit at a rally yet.

The other thing is that everyone needs to be clear that violence or threats of violence have no place in our democratic process.

Violent protesters whether anarchists or neofascists have no place in our national discourse and should be condemned. Be angry, be passionate, etc but if violence is your preference then stay the fuck at home.
posted by vuron at 4:46 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't think either Clinton or Sanders could have seen this in advance. This sounds like a serious escalation by assholes not affiliated with either camp.

Here's a photo (linked off this WashPo story) of people burning Trump hats holding "La Riva for president" signs.

That'd be Gloria La Riva, of the Party for Socialism and Liberation*.

So probably not Clinton or Sanders followers, as such.

maybe there are some black bloc idiot types there. But I think it is more the other end of the spectrum, kids that really don't have any direction (in this moment) and are hyped up on a toxic mix of adrenaline and (righteous) anger.

So it seems.

--------------------
* Which split from Liberation and Socialism Party, which split from the Party of Peace and Freedom, which split from the Peace and Freedom Party, which split from the Workers World Party. . . .
posted by Herodios at 4:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


We are maybe two steps from the Judean People's Front here.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:02 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


People's Front of Judea, surely.
posted by duffell at 5:05 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


They're all splitters!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:13 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


@Trillburne:
seeing all these 4chan edgelords who think they'd be in the SS if it was the 1940s going "VIOLENCE IS UNCONSCIONABLE" tonight is fun
last night: I'm going to send all the cucks to the camps. let's bomb Mexico
tonight: I'm holding a candlelight vigil for the egging victims
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


seeing all these 4chan edgelords who think they'd be in the SS if it was the 1940s going "VIOLENCE IS UNCONSCIONABLE" tonight is fun

People don't get it. They're not doing it to be consistent. They're doing it to piss off liberals by using their own values against them.
posted by Talez at 5:43 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Of course they're not doing it to be consistent. The inconsistency is the joke. Their sudden fainting spells are funny whether or not they're sincere.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


mikelieman: "Cops stomping on hippies in 68? No, The Chicago Police Riot was at the democratic party convention, not a campaign rally..."

You know, this campaign has been reminding me a lot of Pat Cadigan's 1991 story, "Dispatches From the Revolution." And I wish it weren't.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:10 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


That judge he went after was actually threatened by Mexican narco organizations for one of his rulings against them. I mean, the injustice of equating all people of Mexican heritage with drug dealers is bad enough, but for this particular person, even stupider and more hateful.
posted by emjaybee at 7:20 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


Is there a chance Hillary brought out the hammer too soon?

I think she has more than one hammer in her arsenal.
posted by emjaybee at 7:24 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


...What about the option to vote for an ideologically attractive but electorally marginal candidate? This option may be attractive for someone who desires to keep his hands clean by not lending support to candidates he finds morally reprehensible. That’s a noble reason for action. Moral integrity is an important character trait.

But the search for a clean conscience may result in immoral behavior. If our vote is part of a set of votes that will contribute to the defeat of the realistically electable ''lesser evil,'' therefore electing the ''more evil'' candidate, then we force society to pay a high price for our clean conscience. Sometimes, our concern for feeling morally impeccable should give way to a concern for what type of society we can help to create for the sake of all, including ourselves.

If we have a duty of aid toward society, our duty becomes even more stringent when there are real prospects that a scarily unpredictable leader would take power, a candidate who, if elected, could harm society. Under such circumstances, the duty to vote for the lesser evil would be a very serious one.

We cannot expect others to act on society’s behalf if we will not do so ourselves. Thus, voting for the lesser evil is not a lesser action. Morally, it is the right thing to do.
Yes, you do have an obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils. Here’s why.
posted by y2karl at 7:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


Is there a chance Hillary brought out the hammer too soon?

I think she has more than one hammer in her arsenal.


She's running against a hammer factory.
posted by Etrigan at 7:56 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


But she's been up against a hammer factory for the past couple of decades, so...
posted by palomar at 7:57 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


And anyway, that factory makes those shitty hammers you buy at Harbor Freight where the heads just fucking snap off if you so much as glance at them wrong.
posted by dersins at 7:58 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


I see it as more of a Donkey Kong vs. Mario–type setup. One side flings barrels and literal dumpster files, but doesn't have anywhere to move—by the nature of his existence, he is confined to a single mode of being. The other side is going to have to deal with the things that get flung her way, and needs to know when and how to make progress, but the game is hers to lose. And if she genuinely finds hammers, she'll be indestructible.
posted by rorgy at 8:00 AM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


you know my favorite HRC moment lately (I mean before the foreign policy speech) is when she gave Putin a giant red button that said, according to her, "restart" in Russian and Putin was like actually this word in Russian means "overcharge" and she busted out her belly laugh.

I say this because I would have just dissolved into helpless giggles and I don't know why this moment stuck with me so much aside from the fact that she handled it with kind of a dorky grace. Like, the TV version of a dork.
posted by angrycat at 8:07 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Santa Clara county (incl. San Jose) voted 70% for Obama. Why would Trump even bother campaigning in the Bay Area?

Just go away. Everyone hates you here.
posted by ryanrs at 1:51 AM on June 3 [3 favorites +] [!]


He wants to inflame tensions, he wants to provoke violence, and making it appear that Hispanic people are behind it supports his rhetoric.
posted by Small Dollar at 8:09 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Thought for the morning: Hillary may be able to run Trump quotes, verbatim, with full context, this entire campaign and never be accused of twisting the truth or omitting anything.

She might, ironically, run the most honest campaign in history entirely because her opposition is so incapable of telling the truth.
posted by dw at 8:27 AM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


Thought for the morning: Hillary may be able to run Trump quotes, verbatim, with full context, this entire campaign and never be accused of twisting the truth or omitting anything.

I hope she does, in fact, because the media's bias towards phony "balance" (and Trump's now-legendary indifference to the truth) will make them desperate to scrutinize her for any misstatement they can fit into their moldy old "both sides do it" narrative.
posted by Gelatin at 8:32 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


He wants to inflame tensions, he wants to provoke violence, and making it appear that Hispanic people are behind it supports his rhetoric.

I have to say, when I looked at a bit of footage of yesterday's anti-Trump protesters (with Mexican flags draped over their shoulders) attacking people in the street leaving the Trump rally, the very first thing I thought was "false flag operation staged by the trumpies for the evening news cycle." And then I thought, what difference does it even make, what is true, because the news has already consumed and spread its first impression to the uncritical masses. Depressing.

I also thought, stop with the eggs, no matter the cause. One night a couple decades ago I got randomly egged by some assholes driving by in a car and the big fucking welt it left on my leg (through a pair of jeans) hurt for over a week.
posted by aught at 8:34 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Scanning some front pages, I note very little media coverage of HRC's very powerful speech last night. Lots of whatever the latest outrage from Trump, but so little focus on issues or content. I know, same-old some-old, but still. Seems notable to me.
posted by Dashy at 8:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


there was a lot of it from MSNBC wonks, but that's preaching to the choir of course.
posted by zutalors! at 8:41 AM on June 3, 2016


I was expecting a much bigger response from news outlets, but the stupid Paul Ryan 'endorsement' and the egg throwing protesters sucked up all the coverage. I don't watch TV, I wonder if that was any different, but I'm afraid the optics of protest always beat the optics of a middle-aged woman speaking the truth, no matter how many flags you put behind her.

And I just don't get the gravitas the media has anointed Paul Ryan with. He's always struck me as a light weight, there is no there there. His taking his time to endorse was pure drama.
posted by readery at 8:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yes, you do have an obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils. Here’s why.

And that's why, even as a libertarian who likes the Johnson-Weld ticket very much, I'm voting for Clinton this time around. The stakes are too high to do anything else.

Also, she's really growing on me as a person - I think she's an introvert, and we haven't had an introverted POTUS in a really long time. I don't agree with 100% of her policy, but I've come to appreciate and respect her as a human being.
posted by stolyarova at 8:42 AM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]





Also, she's really growing on me as a person - I think she's an introvert, and we haven't had an introverted POTUS in a really long time. I don't agree with 100% of her policy, but I've come to appreciate and respect her as a human being.


Yeah, I went through this exact thing a few months ago. Also, Susan Cain's book Quiet talks about introverted politicians and it matches HRC to a T.
posted by zutalors! at 8:47 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I mean, I grew up in the 90s in a household where Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, and Newt Gingrich were basically gods. Breaking out of the "HILLARY CLINTON IS EVIL INCARNATE" prejudice was a slow process, but I kind of have a girl-crush on her now. And, as a woman, I desperately want to be part of voting for the first female President.

Trump's campaign has done more to open my eyes to misogyny than anything else in my life.
posted by stolyarova at 8:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [22 favorites]


After reading Conrad's The Secret Agent, I am always suspicious of well-timed political violence. The San Jose rally incident reeks of agent provocateur tactics. I believe Trump is going to attempt a Nixonian Law and Order campaign to paint his opponents as lawless mob that must be brought to heel. He'll need to make the Cleveland convention look like Chicago '68. It won't take too many people to make that happen in the age of the ever-present smartphone camera. Two or three good violent clips too juicy for the networks to pass up is all you need.
posted by vibrotronica at 8:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


vibrotronica, what's the best way to investigate and expose agents provocateur?
posted by stolyarova at 8:56 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't know. It's a difficult tactic to counter, because the violent images spread so quickly and make such a lasting impression. His message is "Mexicans are violent", which is pretty simple to convey. The counter-message is "These are a bunch of easily duped hotheads deliberately riled up to create a false impression that they're part of a violent movement which otherwise would not exist", which is more difficult to get across and sounds paranoid because it is actually paranoid.
posted by vibrotronica at 9:04 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


what's the best way to investigate and expose agents provocateur?

You're going to laugh, but shoes and photos. Seriously.
posted by corb at 9:09 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


^^ Totally true. If you're on the lookout for people trying to sneak into or out of someplace with a quick change of clothes, pay attention to the shoes. Layering shirts and pants is easy. Hiding a separate pair of shoes is tough.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:15 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


HRC owning on Twitter:
Donald Trump: In Crooked Hillary's telepromter speech yesterday, she made up things that I said or believe but have no basis in fact. Not honest!

Hillary Clinton: You literally said all those things. http://hrc.io/22CyaZB
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:21 AM on June 3, 2016 [40 favorites]


Trump is literally going to dissolve into a clump of angry fake hair by the time this election's over. Like a werewolf made of desperate clinging to perceived status.
posted by rorgy at 9:25 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm really hoping yesterday finally turned the narrative -- that Hillary is the likely nominee, the Bernie left needs to settle accounts in the next month, and Donald Trump is a grave threat to the office and our world.

But then Bernie people were going on about how John Podhoretz loved her speech and he's a horrible evil neocon. Sigh.
posted by dw at 9:26 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


He's doubling down on his outsider spelling of teleprompter.
posted by peeedro at 9:26 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


The introvert thing is definitely part of my whole early-imprinting-on-Hillary thing. I recognize her. She reminded me of my mother, and now as a 37-year-old, she reminds me of me. She just wants to be a giant nerd with an array of color-coded spreadsheets, deep-diving into interesting policy stuff and not being asked intrusive questions about her private life. I sympathize! I, too, would like to be left alone with spreadsheets to solve the world's problems quietly in a bunker somewhere.

(I can tell my mother none of this, ironically enough, because my mother has hated Hillary since her Senate run, and would be really mad if I told her that they remind me strongly of each other. She's apparently horrified that my sister and I want to see the first woman President, because she thinks our caring about the President's gender is everything she fought against as a second-wave feminist. It's kind of turning into a thing, in our family, and I hope the awfulness of Trump can help us get past it and find common ground, because conversations are getting real uncomfortable real fast.)
posted by Stacey at 9:27 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


I just love how he misspelled teleprompter. Also, did anyone else notice that HRC wore an orange shirt during her speech? It looked good on her too.
posted by zutalors! at 9:27 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Part of turning the corner is paying less attention to what the Bernie dead-enders are saying. Hillary's doing the right thing making this about her vs. Trump, I think it's time for progressives to do the same.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:28 AM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


Donald Trump: In Crooked Hillary's telepromter speech yesterday, she made up things that I said or believe but have no basis in fact. Not honest!

Hillary Clinton: You literally said all those things.

This exchange reminds me of the possibly apocryphal story of LBJ instructing an aide to spread a rumor that his opponent had sex with farm animals. When the aide remarked that the story wasn't true, LBJ us said to have replied, "We'll make the SOB deny it!"

If Trump feels he needs to deny all those the things he actually said, he's effectively conceded Clinton's criticism. Kudos to Team Clinton for having the documentation all prepared. Now, does anyone think that's the only example we'll see this election season?

Heck, she'll probably deliver two or three stings like this during each of the debates, with full preparation for when he denies it. She'll have him trapped and humiliated, and he won't take it well.
posted by Gelatin at 9:29 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


But then Bernie people were going on about how John Podhoretz loved her speech and he's a horrible evil neocon. Sigh.

They're focusing on how the #NeverTrump crowd (which does have a bunch of neocons, this is true) liked her "foreign policy speech" to hit her as a warmonger, except she only called it a foreign policy speech because there's no accepted campaign-event way to say "Donald Trump diss track."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:29 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]




what's the best way to investigate and expose agents provocateur?

You're going to laugh, but shoes and photos. Seriously.

Totally true. If you're on the lookout for people trying to sneak into or out of someplace with a quick change of clothes, pay attention to the shoes.


It worked in Terror from the year 5000. The agent from The Future even stole a face to disguise herself -- and yet it was her Future Shoes that gave her away.
 
posted by Herodios at 9:32 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


his outsider spelling

I kind of like the idea of thinking of Trump as the Henry Darger of politics.

I mean, In the Realms of the Unreal is a pretty legit descriptor of what I will generously (but not without scare quotes) call Trump's "platform."

That's not totally fair to Darger, though. His ideology and mental state were maybe a little more coherent than Trump's.
posted by dersins at 9:34 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Still glowing from that speech, and what it might mean for the campaign to come. A memory I treasure is watching Jason Chavvetz and the rest of that chucklehead Benghazi panel slowly realize how bad they'd fucked up by sealing themselves in a room with Full Combo Bar HRC. Watching her kick them in the chest all day was magnificent and it looks like Trump is about to walk into that same buzzsaw. She has survived a thirty year hate campaign against her and emerged with grit these guys can't fuck with. "I'm not locked in here with you - you're locked in here with me."
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:34 AM on June 3, 2016 [47 favorites]


Yeah, one impression I've consistently gotten through the campaign is that Hillary does not like the gladhanding and rah-rah speechifying that is such a big part of running for president. This weakens her candidacy somewhat, but at the same time I'm a million percent sure that she has been dying to go after somebody with both barrels for months and it made yesterday's speech all the more delicious.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:38 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


"I'm not locked in here with you - you're locked in here with me."

That's exactly what I want to hear her say in the first debate. First thing out of her mouth. Moderators can do introductions, blah blah blah, but the first chance Clinton has to speak, she should ignore the cameras and the audience and turn to Trump with narrowed eyes and say that.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:40 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


I kind of like the idea of thinking of Trump as the Henry Darger of politics.

uh oh what if his secret plan to fight ISIS is to send an army of little girls to the middle east
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:40 AM on June 3, 2016


When Megyn Kelly is the most sensible person in the room you've gone off the fucking deep end

"This is what I was trying to ask Trump about when I sat with him"

NO, YOU DIDN'T! He said whoops and smiled and then you swooned at him and SAID NOTHING ELSE! Even when she's sensible she's still a faux news persona.
posted by numaner at 9:40 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


Realistically, though, the possibility of agents provocateurs means that protestors need to be careful and united about what actions they are and are not committed to taking. It means that people need to be empowered to call out bad actors and intervene (as a few people were doing last night, protecting people who were being attacked by literally walking alongside them).

It means an intentionality and, in a sort of secular sense, a spiritual preparation before protest actions.

Otherwise people will get caught up in the heat and fear and anxiety and rush of the moment and do shitty things, or not do what they can to stop other people doing shitty and counterproductive (or intentionally subversive) things.

Street violence will not stop the fascists. That's their tactic, not ours.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


uh oh what if his secret plan to fight ISIS is to send an army of little girls to the middle east

And then John Ashbery gets to write an epic poem about it?
posted by aught at 9:43 AM on June 3, 2016


we haven't had an introverted POTUS in a really long time

?

I always thought President Obama was an introvert -- a talented public speaker to be sure, but even in '08 one got the sense that he would be happier with his nose in a book, or having a long conversation over drinks with a few close friends.

And certainly he has become much more weary of the clamor of the crowds, in these eight long years.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:45 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]




Hillary was wearing orange yesterday in her speech to make a point about working to a future free of gun violence and the need for gun control.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:48 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]




the orange I would most prefer to see Hillary wearing is THE HIDE OF HER VANQUISHED FOE
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [47 favorites]


Ruth Guerra, the RNC's head of Hispanic media relations has quit rather than work under Trump.

And her replacement had to scrub out all her anti-Trump tweets from her timeline when she took the position.
posted by peeedro at 9:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Personally, I'm looking forward at some point in a debate to Clinton sighing and saying "Oh Donald, grow up."

And then watching Trump have a full on tantrum on stage, and responding to all the following questions by screaming "I AM a grown up!"
posted by happyroach at 9:53 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


McConnell worries Trump could have Goldwater effect on Latino voters.

So you've got the Senate Majority Leader publicly worried that you're fucking it up big time. This isn't some unknown backbencher having a hissy fit.
posted by Talez at 9:53 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


So you've got the Senate Majority Leader publicly worried that you're fucking it up big time

Which is fascinating, because the other day on NPR's Morning Edition, McConnell claimed not to be concerned about Trump's effect on the downballot races.
posted by Gelatin at 9:56 AM on June 3, 2016


Which is fascinating, because the other day on NPR's Morning Edition, McConnell claimed not to be concerned about Trump's effect on the downballot races.

Technically both could be true. Latinos don't really vote for Republicans anyway.
posted by Talez at 10:03 AM on June 3, 2016


The president of a California-based skydiving company, NorCal Skydiving, said he received communication from Sanders' campaign and that Sanders' staff will offer him the shot to skydive into his campaign rally at an airport on Friday, according to The Press Democrat.

NOMINATION ACCOMPLISHED?
posted by dis_integration at 10:04 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


yeah I have no idea why this skydiving tidbit is important?
posted by zutalors! at 10:05 AM on June 3, 2016


yeah I have no idea why this skydiving tidbit is important?

It's not important. I just thought it was absurd. Like this whole election.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:07 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]




It's absurd, and awesome, and will make no difference.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2016


if he's trying to goad Trump into one-upping him by flying into a rally in a wingsuit, then GO BERNIE is alls I have to say
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:09 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


And now Bernie's hiring a sky-diver! Pathetic! I'm having someone construct wings for me and flying to the SUN!
posted by amarynth at 10:11 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


I've been trying to resist calling Sanders continued presence in the election "grandstanding," but if they're thinking about having him do actual stunts?
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


And now Bernie's hiring a sky-diver! Pathetic! I'm having someone construct wings for me and flying to the SUN!

If Trump had presided over the mission to the moon, he would've insisted on being the first one to walk on it.
posted by dis_integration at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2016


And he wouldn't have needed a spacesuit!
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:16 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


lotsa real estate on Mars just begging to be developed by a tremendous deal maker

Olympus Mons sure would look better with some asshole's name on it, just saying
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:17 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Josh Marshall takes the surprisingly logical step of calling for the punchers and egg throwers from San Jose to be tracked down and arrested:
The rule of law is the only way to fight the bacillus Trump and Trumpism represents in this campaign. Trump introduced the violence and eliminationism into the campaign. His enemies are now following suit, indeed in significant ways expanding it. That's not protest; it's mob violence. The one saving grace of last night's free-for-all and earlier ones is the sheer prevalence of social media. We're seeing smartphone videos mainly from journalists who were on the scene. But if you look in the background of these videos, almost everyone who isn't hitting, getting hit or actively taunting is holding up a hand cam of some sort. Everyone involved is readily identifiable, from multiple angles. They should all be identified, tracked down and prosecuted, not primarily as punishment but as deterrence.
posted by zachlipton at 10:17 AM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]




Rage Against the Machine Members Plan RNC Takeover
According to guitarist Tom Morello, Cleveland “will be a perfect place for a band like Prophets of Rage to cause a ruckus, and we will be there on the streets, in the field.” He warned that because of the rogue nature of their protest-heavy performances, they will keep the venue announcements spontaneous: “This is the kind of thing you don't broadcast to the local authorities prior to arrival.”
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:18 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Olympus Mons is huge
posted by kingless at 10:18 AM on June 3, 2016


And he wouldn't have needed a spacesuit!

And pass up the chance to wear that much gold lamé? Nah - elegant spacesuit, pearlescent helmet, shuttle aquarium spills everywhere at launch.
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:21 AM on June 3, 2016


Speaking of absurd and awesome can we all agree that "inpHilltr8r" was the perfect name to have chosen for this thread fifteen years ago?
posted by XMLicious at 10:22 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Well, Cleveland is definitely not going to make it through July intact! I salute you, Rage Against the Machine, but you're probably not helping with the inevitable riotous hellscape Cleveland will so obviously become. There's gonna be a great soundtrack to all the destruction at least!
posted by yasaman at 10:24 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was pretty certain, until I went to his profile, that inpHilltr8r would be a rather new username. Fabulous.
posted by Sophie1 at 10:25 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Let us start with the flying men, and then equip HRC with an EMP or some sort of device that makes them start flying in great out of control arcs, finally leaving the orbit of the Earth
posted by angrycat at 10:27 AM on June 3, 2016


There's gonna be a great soundtrack to all the destruction at least!

Well, a soundtrack, anyway.
posted by dersins at 10:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]




Nah - elegant spacesuit, pearlescent helmet, shuttle aquarium spills everywhere at launch.

And exquisite, albeit petite, gloves made of the finest Corinthian polyester.
posted by y2karl at 10:43 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Interesting : The economy just got its worst job report in years

Not so interesting : Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary

As I've said previously, I'm confident the vast majority of Bernie supporters will vote for Clinton, and she'll likely win in a landslide, so imho this last link comes with an extremely non-representative sample warning. As I've also said, I won't personally vote for Clinton over her tendency towards awful trade deals, but this piece also acts as if she were Bill Part II, which is false.

It's perfectly reasonable to withhold your vote from Clinton on the grounds that the Democrats fuck over your issues. If you do not act on your issues, then the Democrats will always fuck over your issues! You should however consider what Hillary Clinton did as Secretary of state, or who she runs with now, not just what Bill Clinton did two decades ago.

Also, it should be issues not this "Sanders voters feel disrespected" silliness. If you cannot articulate particular reasons some Democrats do not do it for you, then you cannot really expect your views to influence their efforts to gain votes.

posted by jeffburdges at 10:49 AM on June 3, 2016






Poor Paul Ryan. We all thought he made a tactical blunder buying into managing the Tea party loons, but now he must handle these Trump fans too. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 11:03 AM on June 3, 2016


Interesting : The economy just got its worst job report in years

I knew a recession was imminent.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:06 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


For someone who seems to hate immigrants, Trump's family is full of them. His mother and paternal grandparents are immigrants. His first and current wives are immigrants.

Incidentally, Judge Gonzalo Curiel's father arrived in the United States before Trump's mother.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:07 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump University's playbook is the same one American big business has been using for years.

Well, of course. That's the subtext to the whole sad primary season: the GOP was not able to defeat Trump, because he was only guilty of doing what they do more blatantly and more stupidly.

It's like the opposite of "you can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools". Trump has used the master's tools so shoddily that they are revealed as the oppressive instruments they are; and the Right cannot bear to imagine giving up those tools.

And so they have been caught up in their own trap.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:08 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


The apple doesn't fall far from the tree: Donald Trump's father Fred was arrested at a KKK rally in 1927 and Trump lied about it in interviews.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:11 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


The rule of law is the only way to fight the bacillus Trump and Trumpism represents in this campaign.

It doesn't get said enough, probably because he is a member of the generally detestable pundit class, but Josh Marshall is a goddamn national treasure.

I kind of wish he would run for Congress. (It'd be, like, the opposite and equal reaction to Joe Scarborough.) But I suppose, like the Liz Warren VP thing, he's doing more good where he is.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:14 AM on June 3, 2016


Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary

Yves Smith may want to rethink his definitions of both "smart" and "progressive."
posted by dersins at 11:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


Yves Smith may want to rethink his definitions of both "smart" and "progressive."

Rarely Has An Argument Refuted Itself So Comprehensively
posted by tonycpsu at 11:17 AM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


Yeah, Woody Guthrie had some opinions on Papa Trump. Racial hatred seems to be deeply embedded in the Trumps.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:18 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Yves Smith may want to rethink his her definitions of both "smart" and "progressive."

But whatever. Point stands.
posted by dersins at 11:25 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


it will also send a big message to Team Dem that they can no longer abuse progressives.

Yeah, because "Send a message" worked SO well back in 2000.

Seriously, this isn't even Circular Firing Squad, it's more like "Ima shoot myself in the head! That'll show you!" I swear, every time I think the Left may have learned something, well...
posted by happyroach at 11:26 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Yves Smith may want to rethink his definitions of both "smart" and "progressive."

Yves is a ps. of Susan Webber. On Naked Capitalism there are 370 comments right now and most of the ones I have read are supportive of her argument even if they don't agree.
posted by bukvich at 11:28 AM on June 3, 2016


His first and current wives are immigrants.

As Mitt Romney once noted, It turns out there really are jobs Americans won't do.
posted by y2karl at 11:30 AM on June 3, 2016 [22 favorites]


Yeah, because "Send a message" worked SO well back in 2000.

Seriously, this isn't even Circular Firing Squad, it's more like "Ima shoot myself in the head! That'll show you!" I swear, every time I think the Left may have learned something, well...


I'm running to the nearest windswept promontory and screaming "Nader" to the wild and indifferent sky
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


On Naked Capitalism there are 370 comments right now and most of the ones I have read are supportive of her argument even if they don't agree.

As Webber/Smith herself states, her readers are "disproportionately graduate school-educated, older, male and high income." She think that means they're smart. Actually it just means they are absolutely bathing in privilege.

And, as the link tonycpsu posted puts it, "Old, rich white dudes happy to see Republican in the White House. News at 11!"
posted by dersins at 11:35 AM on June 3, 2016 [25 favorites]


so that speech feels like that moment in Buffy where she is fighting evil Angel and she catches the sword in her hands just as it seems like he's going to kill her and she like flips him around with his sword or whatever I don't know it was glorious

in a just world, there will a commensurate change in the narrative of the race but idk
posted by angrycat at 11:39 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


so that speech feels like that moment in Buffy where she is fighting evil Angel and she catches the sword in her hands just as it seems like he's going to kill her and she like flips him around with his sword or whatever I don't know it was glorious

For me it was this
posted by duffell at 11:47 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I can see that the next few months will consist of me watching her speeches and all the debates while drinking heavily and whispering "yaaaassss queen" to myself.
posted by palomar at 11:57 AM on June 3, 2016 [24 favorites]


As an aside, there are several action Obama could take, any one of which, would make me feel better about the Democrats, listen to his endorsement, and actually vote for Clinton :

President Obama, pardon Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning

I know it's nothing to do with trade, but it'd indicate a certain connection with the world outside their bubble.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:09 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I can see that the next few months will consist of me watching her speeches and all the debates while drinking heavily and whispering "yaaaassss queen" to myself.

"You are small men. None of you are fit to lead the Americans. But I am. So I will."
posted by saturday_morning at 12:10 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'm running to the nearest windswept promontory and screaming "Nader" to the wild and indifferent sky

tfw you don't quite hit the irony level you meant to hit <<<
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:11 PM on June 3, 2016


corb is right, look to the shoes. That's how they proved that the cops were both inciting and committing violence at the 2007 protests in Quebec. Later they even admitted it. They just couldn't give up their tactical boots.

And yes, the best defense is organization and a firm comittment to policing your own. My mother, a genuine hippie who was beaten by the cops in DC during the Morotorium to End the War, said that during the organization meetings they had a saying: anyone advocating violence is a Fed.
posted by sotonohito at 12:12 PM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]



As an aside, there are several action Obama could take, any one of which, would make me feel better about the Democrats, listen to his endorsement, and actually vote for Clinton :

President Obama, pardon Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning


Sanders doesn't support pardoning Snowden either, which diminished his outsider progressive radical status to me.
posted by zutalors! at 12:24 PM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


Don't presidents usually save the controversial pardons until January, when they're almost out the door? (Not that I think Obama is likely to pardon those two anyway, but it seems a very pie-in-the-sky thing to hope will happen during the thick of a presidential campaign.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:32 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump used Wagner as his entrance music last night - skip to the 29:15 mark

I hear the Leni Riefenstahl documentary about this campaign is going to be fantastic.
posted by item at 12:35 PM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


As an aside, there are several action Obama could take, any one of which, would make me feel better about the Democrats, listen to his endorsement, and actually vote for Clinton :

President Obama, pardon Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning

I know it's nothing to do with trade, but it'd indicate a certain connection with the world outside their bubble.


Acknowledging it's not about trade but would win your vote anyway kind of undermines the idea of sending a cogent message to the D party by withholding your vote, and reads to me like a depressing expansion of issues that are more important to you, personally, symbolically, and politically, than the most basic safeguarding (via, if nothing else, court appointments) of basic human rights for women, immigrants, the poor, and all marginalized people.
posted by Salamandrous at 12:39 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


President Obama, pardon Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning

The linked article mentions Samuel Loring Morrison being pardoned by Bill Clinton. Regardless of whether you believe that Snowden and Manning should be prosecuted for their crimes, it seems like there are some key differences that made Morrison a bit more likely to be pardoned:
  • Morrison was pardoned some fifteen years after his actions.
  • Morrison leaked three photographs. This is a bit of a different scope from, oh, indiscriminately dumping out troves of secret cables to Wikileaks or a bunch of NSA documents to newspapers.
  • Morison was prosecuted. He didn’t flee to Russia or any other foreign power.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:40 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


And he wouldn't have needed a spacesuit!

Right. As Craig "Confidence" Ferguson would tell you, "Oxygen is for losers!"
 
posted by Herodios at 12:40 PM on June 3, 2016


Don't presidents usually save the controversial pardons until January, when they're almost out the door? (Not that I think Obama is likely to pardon those two anyway, but it seems a very pie-in-the-sky thing to hope will happen during the thick of a presidential campaign.)

Importantly: is there a large contingent of Americans agitating for either of these pardons? Quite a few people like what Snowden did, but that’s not the same as a constituency.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:42 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


(I think the Wagner was dubbed into the Trump video? Kind of like the Bernie + DMX thing earlier?)
posted by nicepersonality at 1:13 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Be realistic. Obama isn't going to pardon Snowden and Manning. He's just not. Saying that doing so would win your vote is nothing but a rhetorical ploy. As pointed out, even Sanders doesn't support doing so.
posted by Justinian at 1:14 PM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


I was out doing Restore the 4th protests for a couple years after Snowden's and Manning's disclosures, but the will to protest mass surveillance is pretty much dead now.
posted by stolyarova at 1:20 PM on June 3, 2016


> will to protest mass surveillance is pretty much dead now.

There's lots of will but no leadership. In that Clinton speach she said she'd increase the surveillance state globally and it's just sort of accepted.
posted by anti social order at 1:35 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


The president of a California-based skydiving company, NorCal Skydiving, said he received communication from Sanders' campaign and that Sanders' staff will offer him the shot to skydive into his campaign rally at an airport on Friday, according to The Press Democrat.

SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY

M-M-M-MONSTER NITRO FUEL INJECTED POLITICS AS BERNIE SANDERS
*flamethrower sound*
(guttural but cool voice) THE BEEEEEERN
WILL BE BUUUUURNING DOWN THE TRACK ON HIS WAY TO TAKING OUT

(dark ominous voice) THE SHRRRRRRILLLLLLARY

WITH M-M-M-MONSTER ACADEMIC ACTION WITH COOOOOOORNEL WEST
AND SKY-SKY-SKY (echo) DIVERS
AND AN ALLLL-SINGING ALLL-DANCING
(big echo)
NUUURRRSSSES UNION

THIS WEEKEND AT THE SPEEDWAY! KIDS GET IN FREE!!!

BEEEEEEE THEEEEEREEEEE
*flamethrower sound*
posted by dw at 1:45 PM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


Importantly: is there a large contingent of Americans agitating for either of these pardons? Quite a few people like what Snowden did, but that’s not the same as a constituency.

Take this, as all anecdata, with plenty of metaphorical salt, but I know plenty of people who care deeply about pardoning Snowden (not enough to affect their vote, probably, but still), and next to no one who talks about pardoning Chelsea Manning. I think a lot of it has to do with how responsibly they managed their respective data dumps, and how judicious they were or weren't with the information they leaked.
posted by duffell at 1:53 PM on June 3, 2016


If my tax dollars are used to create it, I deserve to see it.
posted by mikelieman at 1:58 PM on June 3, 2016


dw: you forgot

WE'LL SELL YOU THE WHOLE SEAT BUT YOU'LL ONLY NEED THE EDGE
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:04 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


If my tax dollars are used to create it, I deserve to see it.

So governments should keep no secrets at all? Nothing should be classified, ever? I am not certain in what universe that is even remotely plausible, let alone advisable, but it ain't this one.
posted by dersins at 2:05 PM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


If my tax dollars are used to create it, I deserve to see it.

This is kind of a petulant argument, the sort I expect to see from libertarians not leftists.

One can believe that there are some things which the government has a legitimate national security need to keep confidential and also disagree with the demonization (and flight) of Eric Snowden, and sympathize with his belief that staying to face trial would have resulted in his being buried by secret, unconstitutional mock tribunals.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:07 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]








While I have enormous problems with mass surveillance, the government's over-classification problem, and the extraordinarily long time it takes to get anything declassified, I believe, as do most people, that some government secrets do save lives and should be protected for an appropriate period of time.
posted by zachlipton at 2:23 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Friday morning, Trump was still Twitter-bitching, and still spelling “Teleprompter” incorrectly....

To be fair, the “P” key is way up on the top right of the keyboard, and maybe Donald Trump’s tiny pinky finger can’t always stretch out and hit it good.


Heh.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:23 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]




If people feel uncomfortable sharing zombieflanders's unlisted Trump clip, I've reuploaded it publicly here. Thank you for the file, zombieflanders. Citizen journalism and multiple copies of things like this are important.
posted by stolyarova at 2:42 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Whoops. zombieflanders's video isn't unlisted anymore and now I feel silly. He deserves the credit. Use his link!
posted by stolyarova at 2:44 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was out doing Restore the 4th protests for a couple years after Snowden's and Manning's disclosures, but the will to protest mass surveillance is pretty much dead now.

Maybe that will change after President Trump gets control of the NSA.
posted by homunculus at 2:45 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obama Wanted to Cut Social Security. Then Bernie Sanders Happened.

So here's what I'm never sure about with The Intercept_ (that underscore can go fuck itself in the face, btw.) Does it think it's news, or does it think it's opinion? (Does it even understand there's a difference? I believe Greenwald does--though he often knowingly chooses to blur the lines--but I am not convinced some of their other writers do.)

That article appears to be presenting itself as news, but is chock full of loaded, leading language.

It also presents its thesis (that Obama and Clinton changed their positions specifically because Sanders forced them into it) as fact, despite providing exactly zero evidence to support a causal relationship.

Mostly I'm just seriously fucking irritated by the underscore, though.
posted by dersins at 2:46 PM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]




Johnson can safely promise anything he wants, though. It's like me telling my cats "when I'm king of the universe you can have unlimited moths to torture."
posted by dersins at 2:50 PM on June 3, 2016 [22 favorites]


Obama Wanted to Cut Social Security. Then Bernie Sanders Happened.

That article provides a good example of the positive effects of having a strong progressive voice (whether it be Sanders, or someone else) on the national stage, which can only benefit the Democratic Party in the long run, assuming unity can be achieved after the nominee is chosen.

Of course, then you get to the first comment, which reads like a parody of a Bernie-or-Bust dumb shit:
Barack and Hillary are giving lip service to expanding Social Security.
These shills for the 1% have no deep convictions that seniors on Social Security shouldn’t starve; they’re just responding to public outrage.
Even Hillary can’t say “expand Social Security” without weasel words: “for those who need it most”. Just like she can’t say she opposes the TPP without saying “in its present form”.
Don’t be fooled by lying 1% shills! Hillary (and the other enemies of the 99%) will NEVER get my votes!
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:52 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


woah Trump actually made the sleepy-hand gesture in attacking HRC's speech
posted by angrycat at 2:53 PM on June 3, 2016


frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't broken out the ol' jerkoff motion yet
posted by Existential Dread at 2:55 PM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


As President, I won't just "consider" pardoning Snowden, I will actually do it.

Now that you know this, if you vote for Gary Johnson instead of writing in poop, well then I guess you're just a gutless establishment shill who hates liberty and has no principles, after all.
posted by nom de poop at 2:56 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


1. run against establishment candidates, forcing them to shift their policies leftward
2. demonize them such that your supporters refuse to vote for them in the general
3.


needs work
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:59 PM on June 3, 2016 [26 favorites]


dersins: "That article appears to be presenting itself as news, but is chock full of loaded, leading language."

It also doesn't mention that the chained CPI proposal wasn't made in isolation, as if Obama just wanted to cut Social Security for its own sake. It was part of the negotiation for a so-called "grand bargain" where he offered up chained CPI indexing mainly in exchange for (IIRC) raising the top tax rates (and probably other stuff but mainly this, I think). In the end, a combination of pressure from liberal Democrats as well as Republican intransigence mooted the whole thing. People can argue about whether or not Obama should have even offered up what amounts to a SS cut to the Republican congress in the first place, but I really don't think we should infer that cutting SS was his ultimate objective.
posted by mhum at 3:00 PM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


Meanwhile, here in Chicago: Oh, CPD, never change.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:01 PM on June 3, 2016


More racist attacks from Trump against Judge Curiel today:
He tried to spell it out again for Tapper, saying, “We are building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico.”
The stupidest thing is the inconsistency. Trump has spent the last year running around claiming that Hispanic folks love him because of his immigration plan: "And you know, the Latinos love Trump and I love them." He bragged for weeks about how he won the Latino vote in Nevada (meaning a polling firm managed to find a grand total of 100 Latino Republicans in the state and a number of them, a small sample of a very small subgroup, weren't repulsed by Trump).

And yet now, when a federal judge with Mexican heritage rules against Trump, it's obviously a conflict of interest and the judge better be investigated and recuse himself? If Latinos loved Trump half as much as he claims, then there'd be decent odds that the judge was a Trump fan too, and just ruled against him not because of any bias, but because he operated a scam that used high-pressure sales tactics to get people to part with large sums of money under false pretenses. But no, the minute things don't go his way, it's obviously because of the Judge's background, despite all the people of the same background that supposedly love Trump.

As Josh Marshall points out, the real story here is not just that Trump has been attacking a federal judge, but that he's saying that a Mexican-American, one born in Indiana in 1953 no less, is unqualified for office because of his heritage.
posted by zachlipton at 3:27 PM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


“He's of Mexican heritage and he's very proud of it, as I am,” Trump replied.

whoa talking about burying the lede
posted by theodolite at 3:31 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Where does the judge stand on Trump Tower Taco bowls?
posted by Artw at 3:35 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


As people have pointed out, while the Hispanic vote is generally hostile to Trump, it's by no means homogenous. There's certainly Mexican Americans who dislike illegal immigration - "I got here legally, why should they skip the line." I wonder if any of them will notice that Trump has made it clear that *no one* of Mexican heritage (and presumably other Hispanic Americans) counts as a real proper citizen. Even if you were born here, much less legally immigrated.
posted by tavella at 3:41 PM on June 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


I wonder if any of them will notice that Trump has made it clear that *no one* of Mexican heritage (and presumably other Hispanic Americans) counts as a real proper citizen.

Uh, my money's on "yes."
posted by dersins at 3:45 PM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Also anyone who "looks" Hispanic or Muslim, which includes me.
posted by zutalors! at 3:50 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Where does the judge stand on Trump Tower Taco bowls?

On them, possibly.
posted by notyou at 3:51 PM on June 3, 2016


And if the precedent is set regarding Hispanic and Muslim immigrants, it applies to pretty much all immigrants. My husband is a first-generation ethnic Russian (came here as a child, so he doesn't have an accent). He's a citizen, but the idea of mass deportation scares the shit out of him because he knows that mistakes get made and he's in the INS's database. He's also olive-skinned and black-haired, and he has a beard. So, yeah. Basically, beating the drum of xenophobia never turns out well for anybody.
posted by stolyarova at 3:53 PM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I assure you, they're noticing. Children are noticing. My little cousin who's in second grade came home from school and asked her parents if they were going to have to leave America because of Trump. Her Latino classmates have been asking the same thing. These kids are all US citizens.
posted by yasaman at 3:56 PM on June 3, 2016 [28 favorites]


Dersins, I meant Hispanic Trump supporters specifically. I seem to recall corb mentioning that much of their family were Hispanic and Trump supporters, though I may be mixing up people.
posted by tavella at 4:00 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


As Josh Marshall points out, the real story here is not just that Trump has been attacking a federal judge, but that he's saying that a Mexican-American, one born in Indiana in 1953 no less, is unqualified for office because of his heritage.

Josh Marshall is overstating it just a bit -- Trump's argument (such as it is), is that Curiel should disqualify himself from the Trump University case in particular because Curiel's identity as a Mexican-American (such as it is), will cloud his judgement because Trump has advocated racist policies. Presumably he would challenge a Muslim judge on similar grounds. And also probably a woman. It's still a terrible argument, but it is not the same as arguing that Curiel's heritage disqualifies him from office as such.

What's pernicious about it is that it reverses a long-standing progressive ideal -- that officialdom should be staffed with people from (of?) a variety of ethnic and gender identities who can then bring their identity informed perspectives to bear on decisions and policies. The reversal conflates experience with bias, or understanding with acting, although if he just keeps babbling it, plenty of folks will go "ah-ha, yeah, see! Same diff!"

What a disaster this guy is. Just terrible.
posted by notyou at 4:19 PM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]




Trump: 'I Don't Have Thin Skin!' (VIDEO)
Well, first of all I don't have thin skin. I have very strong, very thick skin. And when somebody's right about me I always--you know--if you do a report and it's not necessarily positive but you're right, I never complain. I do complain when it's a lie or when it's wrong. But I have a strong temperament, and it's a very good temperament, and it's a very in-control temperament or I wouldn't have built this unbelievable company, I wouldn't have built all the things I've been able to do in life...
posted by kirkaracha at 4:26 PM on June 3, 2016 [21 favorites]


kirkaracha, without the video, I would have thought that was parody.
posted by stolyarova at 4:28 PM on June 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


Holy shit and Hillz hasn't even mentioned his tiny little baby hands yet.
posted by EatTheWeak at 4:35 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


without the video, I would have thought that was parody
Nah, I can't make that up. I wouldn't use that many "very"s.

posted by kirkaracha at 4:38 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


And I'm not saying she hit a nerve, but...
Let me tell you, there’s nobody with a better temperament than me. I have a temperament for winning. I’ve won all my life, and we’re gonna start winning for you, OK?
...
I really believe I have the greatest temperament there is and the temperament that this country needs at this time. Now, I could just slough it off and say, ‘Oh, I have a wonderful temperament; I’m really a wonderful person. Look, let me tell you, I have a tough temperament, but we need a tough temperament. Now my temperament is totally controlled, so beautiful.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:42 PM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump: 'I Don't Have Thin Skin!' (VIDEO)

What else can she make him deny? :D
posted by zarq at 4:43 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Thin Skinned Man Vehemently Denies He Has Thin Skin
posted by zarq at 4:45 PM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Holy crap. He is going to lose what's left of his mind if this is how wound up he gets from one speech.
posted by gofargogo at 4:46 PM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


Frankly, the price you pay for saying a lot of racist horrible things is that a non-trivial number of people may come to dislike if not detest you. The inherent risk that one of those people could theoretically be the federal judge presiding over the civil fraud charges against you is, assuming you receive an otherwise fair trial, simply part of the cost of being a loud and proud racist.

We, of course, have no idea whether any of this is actually the case either. For all we know, Judge Curiel could have voted for Trump. And there's no particular reason to assume a replacement judge of any ethnicity wouldn't find Trump to be an odious man either. Indeed, I suspect judges come to develop a dislike for a number of people in their courtrooms every day, and many people who spend time with Donald Trump appear to dislike him.

But at the end of the day, if you run around saying stupid and hateful things, the fact that people might not like you and be offended is on you.
posted by zachlipton at 4:46 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Now my temperament is totally controlled, so beautiful.”

Fantastic. Him showing Jake Tapper his inside voice like he just learned what that is? Fantastic.
posted by EatTheWeak at 4:49 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have avoided election threads because, well, I'm sane, that's why. But this from Trump:

“If you choose Hillary Clinton, this country is gonna die. It’s gonna die,” Trump said during a rally in Redding, California. “She’s not respected by other countries.”

Dude, she personally led the invasion of fucking countries. She has a body count that make Margaret Thatcher look like Florence Nightingale. Now, they may not respect her, true, but I'm pretty sure they understand that she will invade their sorry asses if they let shit get out of line.
posted by GuyZero at 4:49 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Lemme tell y'all, all the resident Trump supporter saw from yesterday's protests were the "guys in hairnets with only the top button of their shirt buttoned" attack people, "just for supporting Trump." He thought that the person in the SUV in the parking garage should have thrown it into reverse and backed over a few of the people attacking their car. He'll be damned if he'll live in a country where, "a skinny, 90-pound piece-of-shit thinks they're better than [him]," and has free reign to bust his tail-light. He would rather, "burn this motherfucker down, Pookie." Direct quotes from within the hour as we watched the news.
posted by ob1quixote at 4:52 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Dude, she personally led the invasion of fucking countries.

This is.... this is not actually the case.
posted by dersins at 4:53 PM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


This is.... this is not actually the case.

I mean, she could have been in Libya. It's a possibility.

fine it's not true, FINE
posted by GuyZero at 4:55 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm not an anti-interventionist, but I'm for smart intervention. This is just bad taste.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:58 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


While I agree that there may be circumstances under which it is appropriate for the US government to keep things secret for a limited period, I think it's also self evident that the secrecy has gotten far out of hand.

Right now it seems as if the default position is to make everything secret and the only way any government information is ever released is if someone can specifically prove that it shouldn't be secret.

And the secrecy not only lasts basically forever, documents are only released when requested rather than simply being made available to everyone when (if it ever happens) they are declassified.

Frankly, the US government has proven itself to be unable to handle secrecy in an responsible manner and I'm perfectly willing to say that until it can demonstrate it is competent to use secrecy properly the only thing it can actually keep secret is the identities and specific locations of active spies, battle plans until such time as the battle has actually finished and not one second longer, and the specific details of weapon systems (though the general functioning and existence of all weapons systems should be open).

Even if the government had demonstrated responsibility with secrecy, I'm at a loss to understand why anything other than those three things should be kept secret anyway. Corruption and evil thrives in secrecy, openness is our only real defense.
posted by sotonohito at 4:58 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I seem to recall corb mentioning that much of their family were Hispanic and Trump supporters, though I may be mixing up people.

No, you're fucking sadly correct. I think they think they're safe because they've tried to assimilate? Actually really I don't know why they don't listen to me when I tell them we are all going to be first against the Trump wall, I just weep and rage a lot. But yes, bizarrely actual (legal) Hispanic immigrants sometimes vote insanely for Trump because they think it'll be totes cool.
posted by corb at 5:03 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


“If you choose Hillary Clinton, this country is gonna die. It’s gonna die,” Trump said during a rally in Redding, California. “She’s not respected by other countries.”
And he's respected by Vladimir Putin and Kim Jung Il... then again, if you want your country to live like THIERS are, Trump's your man.

And we need to echo the rumor passing around that a big reason Paul Ryan has gotten behind him is that in their private meeting he gave his assurances that some planks in his platform (like "protect social security" and "raise taxes on the rich") are NOT something he'll put any weight on as President.

The issue of Government Secrecy will get very interesting after Trump's "Official Secret Briefing" because you KNOW he's going to be making hay with misrepresentations (if not downright lies) about what he's told. Who knows, if America is lucky, he might just blab enough to run himself afoul of the same law we prosecuted Manning on.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:10 PM on June 3, 2016


Look at my African-American over here. Look at him!

Well, that sounds pretty bad taken out of context. In context, it's completely innocent:
We had a case where we had an African-American guy who was a fan of mine. Great fan, great guy. In fact, I wanna find out what's going on with him. Ah, look at my African-American over here, look at him. Are you the greatest? You know what I'm talking about? OK.

So we have an African-American guy at one of the rallies a month ago, and he's sitting there behaving, and we had protesters inside the arena. And they were dressed in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, OK? And they're running around dressed as Ku Klux Klan. And the place is booing them, booing them. This African-American gets up and man, he slugged these guys. He slugged 'em.

By that time their hat was off 'cause it got ripped off as they were running up the stairs, but this guy, a great guy, I think he was a military guy for a long time, he slugged this guy wearing the Ku Klux Klan outfit. But by the time he got up to the top, you couldn't see it was a Ku Klux Klan outfit.

So when the African-American cold-cocked this guy this guy never knew what happened. Everybody thought the African-American was against me, and it was the opposite. He was like this great guy, military guy. We have tremendous African-American support, the reason is I'm going to bring jobs back to our country.
Over the course of this story the sign slowly, slowly falls off the podium.

And sure, it's politically correct to say "African-American," but you don't need to say it every single time. Was this one great black guy the only African-American at both rallies?

Video of the slugging incident shows it was one protestor in an American flag shirt. No hat.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:12 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump said during a rally in Redding, California.

My hometown! Maybe if he doesn't capture the White House, he can capture whatever shack they decide to house the governor of the State of Jefferson.

I'm sure the rally was well attended.

Perhaps by members of my own family.

Left at 17 and never looked back.
posted by notyou at 5:13 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


LA Times endorses Hillary Clinton.

"Forget it Jake, it's tronctown."
posted by notyou at 5:17 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Video of the slugging incident shows it was one protestor in an American flag shirt. No hat.

Correction. The protestor was with a woman that was wearing a white hood. They were being escorted out by security people when the great African American guy assaulted the other guy. I regret the error.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:18 PM on June 3, 2016


"Forget it Jake, it's tronctown."

Oh God, please, no.
posted by Sophie1 at 5:19 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I have heard the same thing at my office. there's a core group of Mexican heritage people that I am friendly with and when Trump was speaking in Chicago I was surprised that they thought he was great. They are second generation and assimilated, or wanna-be. They love the success and wealth he portrays. I jokingly said. "well he plays a billionaire on TV but he sure shows up for any paycheck he can pick up or will shill any product for a dime" and a couple wanted to argue with me. Some report to me so I can't make this a thing, I have studiously avoided the conversation.
But this turn where he can make an assumption about a judge born in this country and just play up the foreignness of the name? I think he has gone too far. It is an insult.

Again. Surely, this?
When two out of three of his wives are also non native english speaking foreign born

posted by readery at 5:20 PM on June 3, 2016


corb Well, if it's any comfort your family isn't alone in their foolishness, or short sightedness, or whatever it is. I know a Colombian immigrant who is also a vocal Trump supporter. Or knew, he doesn't work where I do anymore.

Statistically very few Latinx people support Trump, but there's apparently always a handful who just don't think the StormTrumpers will be coming for them too.
posted by sotonohito at 5:23 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


There are a number of Cuban immigrants who look fondly on the days of Batista before Castro. There are a number of Nicaraguan immigrants who look fondly on the days of Somoza before the Sandinistas. I wouldn't be surprised if some are Trump supporters.
posted by JackFlash at 5:32 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Does Trump know what temperament means?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:02 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I figure Trump will get about 15-20% of the Latino vote simply because I think there are probably that many single party Latino voters who will vote Republican even if the Pope endorsed Hillary.

But let's be honest Romney got curbstomped by Obama in 2012 and he managed to get something like 35% of the Latino vote which Republican strategists have repeatedly said that they most do better among that demographic or be a permanent opposition party.

In the meantime Trump continues to double down on anti-Latino racism and isn't even switching to the normal dog whistle language. It's no longer subtext but full on text.

And this is the demographic that is growing by the largest margins in the US and has one of the youngest cohorts. Latino voter turnout has been pretty low for ages otherwise several states would've already turned blue but you can see a wave of blue sweeping across the southwest where New Mexico is basically bright blue, Colorado is liable to become a safely blue state, Nevada is rapidly moving into safe territory and previously bright red states like Arizona are becoming potential battleground states.

Political research shows that who you vote for in your first couple of elections in your 20s correlates strongly to your voter preferences the rest of your life. What Trump is doing is not just fucking over his own chances but potentially causing a disaster for the Republican party for the next couple of decades because while old cranky white dude are dying off rapidly, young people of all colors are rapidly becoming extremely angry with Trump and the bunch of Republican cowards now rallying behind him. They might not be as enchanted with Hillary as they were with Obama 08 but it's not going to take much to win them over even if Hillary will never be as easy and smooth as Obama (or Bill for that matter).

I honestly think Hillary doesn't even need to go that negative on Trump because she can just point to his own words and let them do the talking. I think all that she needs to show is that she genuine and relatable. She won't win over the people with terminal Clinton derangement syndrome who think every thing she says is a ploy but her mastery with small group settings should really become central to her messaging.

That and surround her with lots and lots of girls with simple captions like "In 1920 the 19th Amendment was passed giving women the right to vote, don't we think it's time for women to have the right to lead?" or "Don't you want your daughter growing up with a role model that women can be anything they choose to be?"

Shit like that would probably cause all sorts of allergy attacks in my household but it would resonate like crazy.
posted by vuron at 6:02 PM on June 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


Jumping way back up to talking about Republicans with moderate electorates and Mark Kirk, Real Clear Politics says GOP donors have spent almost nothing on Kirk's race and despite their words of praise the lack of money suggests they consider him a dead duck between the presidential-year turnout and the strength of the opposition. (Dems also haven't been spending a lot because they don't think they need to to win.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:15 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Harry Reid now seems to want Elizabeth Warren on the ticket:
Harry Reid is quietly promoting Elizabeth Warren as a top pick to be Hillary Clinton’s running mate, and the Senate minority leader is already looking into Massachusetts law to see how quickly her Senate seat could be filled if Warren were to ascend to the vice presidency, a source close to him said Friday.

Reid views Warren as someone who can unite the Democratic Party after the longer-than-expected primary battle between Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the source said. The person confirmed a Boston Globe story that reported Reid is actively researching the state’s special election rules. “He thinks Warren is a good choice to unify the party,” the person close to Reid said. ...
posted by maudlin at 6:28 PM on June 3, 2016


Warren as attack dog in chief on the campaign would be glorious. It would unify the progressives and centrist around Hillary's nomination and Trump has shown over and over that he can't handle strong women challenging him. I mean seriously he lost his shit against Megyn Kelly who is hardly the most challenging interrogator.
posted by vuron at 6:32 PM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Warren as a vice presidential candidate would be pretty awesome, but Warren would be completely wasted on the vice presidency. She deserves a better, more important job than that.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:46 PM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


Pretty much everybody wants Warren on the ticket. Except, as far as anybody can tell, Elizabeth Warren herself.

Personally, I'd rather she keep on doing her thing in the Senate as well, though she would undoubtedly make a fine VP.

I'd really like to see a non-white person in Clinton's VP slot, myself. I'm not familiar enough with the Democratic bench to suggest one (Loretta Lynch, like Warren, would be wasted on the Vice Presidency), though.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:48 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Pretty much everybody wants Warren on the ticket. Except, as far as anybody can tell, Elizabeth Warren herself.

You sure about that? Putting herself out there on Twitter as an attack dog seems like exactly what someone in her position would want to be doing if they were interested in Veeping.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:05 PM on June 3, 2016


tobascodagama: "I'd really like to see a non-white person in Clinton's VP slot, myself. I'm not familiar enough with the Democratic bench to suggest one"

I've heard people suggesting that Cory Booker might be a strong choice. Julian Castro might be more of a sleeper choice given his somewhat lower profile.
posted by mhum at 7:06 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd go for Cory Booker.
I'd rather keep Warren in the Senate and have her run in 2020 or 2014, whenever Clinton decides she's done.
posted by Superplin at 7:15 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton just proved she can be her own attack dog.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:18 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Especially after his work on the Verizon strike, my money is on Secretary of Labor Tom Perez for Veep.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:20 PM on June 3, 2016


I'd go for Cory Booker.

I suggest you meditate on this image while reconsidering this suggestion.
posted by multics at 7:20 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd go for Cory Booker.

I wouldn't. Wall Street issues, plus way too cozy with the education "reform" crowd.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:22 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Oh shit. I got it: Vice President Michelle Obama.
posted by mhum at 7:26 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I wouldn't. Wall Street issues, plus way too cozy with the education "reform" crowd.

Conversely, Booker has more real-life superhero cred than basically anyone in politics right now. Pulls people out of burning buildings, chases muggers, stuff like that. Gotta count for something.

When Batman is scared at night, he calls Cory Fucking Booker.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:26 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


No Booker or Warren or any other Senator from a state with a republican governor who will appoint some horror show to replace them.
posted by octothorpe at 7:28 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


So yeah, Perez is who I would push for VP. SecLabor, so no issues with leaving a Senate seat up; Puerto Rican, and proud of his heritage; and he just helped the CWA and IBEW get a big win with Verizon, so he helps with union support.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:33 PM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Clinton just proved she can be her own attack dog.

I mean, yes, I agree, but that was just now and Warren's been needling Trump for weeks -- my point is that she may be interested in the slot, not necessarily that HRC needs her.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:33 PM on June 3, 2016


The Obama administration flirted way too hard with dudes who were anti-teachers unions (Arne Duncan and Rahm Emanuel), if Cory Booker gets close to the White House I'll be convinced that the Dems literally are out of shits to give about women's largest slice of organized labor anymore.
posted by mostly vowels at 7:33 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Okay, nix on Booker. I only knew about his superhero antics, not the rest. Someone with strong labor cred would be fantastic.
posted by Superplin at 7:53 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


No no no to any anti-teacher Democrat on the ticket. I get a lot of shit about not voting for the Democratic candidate in my district, but we all have our lines. Being an anti-teacher union Democrat or charter school supporter is mine. Being a child of teachers who see the ugly scorn Republicans (and a shameful amount of Democrats) put on them will do that.

Being a Bernie supporter (until a couple weeks ago, but that's another matter), my mom and I have generally skirted politics this season. But if there's one thing that will turn her, someone who is a strong Clinton supporter, into a non-vote it will be an anti-public school candidate on the ballot. Democrats don't do well on this issue. They're better than Republicans. But still they're pretty awful when it comes to teachers.
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:04 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Yeah, "education reform" is literally of the devil. That's eating our societal seed corn. The education of future generations does not need to be a profit engine.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:11 PM on June 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


Wow, I really hadn't heard this about Booker.
And I'm a teacher.
Huh.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:21 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Don't put him on the ticket, but give Mark Cuban a role. Let's see some real blowhard billionaire-on-billionaire blowhard violence, since Romney and Bloomberg are too scared to run. Make him head of Twitter relations.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:24 PM on June 3, 2016


I've seen these suggestions about Mark Cuban before, and I really don't understand the idea of having him involved when there also exists the option of having him completely not involved in any way. It's not like you have to have a narcissist billionaire involved in every presidential campaign.
posted by skewed at 8:30 PM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


I just want to see fire fight fire
posted by Apocryphon at 8:33 PM on June 3, 2016


Oh god no Mark Cuban. No role for Mark Cuban in anything.

Guy convinced Yahoo to blow billions to buy his worthless company back in the '90s and came away thinking he was an internet genius. Just he found a bigger idiot named Yahoo doesn't magically make him smart.
posted by zachlipton at 8:33 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


This is our chance to see Russ Hanneman face off against Biff Tannen. Whoever wins, Clinton can sweep up the pieces.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:42 PM on June 3, 2016


Wow, I really hadn't heard this about Booker.

One of better summaries (if not the most recent - this was published in May 2014, a little over two years ago) -- from The New Yorker, by Dale Russakoff:
Schooled - Cory Booker, Chris Christie, and Mark Zuckerberg had a plan to reform Newark’s schools. They got an education. (an article which went into Russakoff's more-recently published book on education reform, 'The Prize'.
Newark has fifty new principals, four new public high schools, a new teachers’ contract that ties pay to performance, and an agreement by most charter schools to serve their share of the neediest students. But residents only recently learned that the overhaul would require thousands of students to move to other schools, and a thousand teachers and more than eight hundred support staff to be laid off within three years. In mid-April, seventy-seven members of the clergy signed a letter to Christie requesting a moratorium on the plan, citing “venomous” public anger and “the moral imperative” that people have power over their own destiny. Booker, now a U.S. senator, said in a recent interview that he understood families’ fear and anger: “My mom—she would’ve been fit to be tied with some of what happened.” But he characterized the rancor as “a sort of nadir,” and predicted that in two or three years Newark could be a national model of urban education. “That’s pretty monumental in terms of the accomplishment that will be.”
posted by cjelli at 8:44 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


On a less facetious note, yes it's good that Clinton's speech has gotten under Trump's skin, it's a good preview of how she'll attack him. That angle of attack will probably be enough to defeat him. And even if it doesn't, even if he wins debates against her, I think she's going to inevitably win regardless.

But this goes beyond this election, and more about the perceptions of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives in the country. There seems to be a general* widespread perception that Democrats speak softer, aren't willing to get personal. And that's fine if the frontrunner or the head of the party doesn't deign to debase to the level of the opposition. But it's good to have people around who can. Which is why I think the presence of Democrats such as Alan Grayson is important, it doesn't seem like there's a lot of attack dogs from the left. Sometimes you need enforcers on their team to get into fisticuffs. Sometimes you do need to engage certain fights at the same level as the opposition.

Isn't that what Eliot Spritzer, or maybe Anthony Weiner, was known for before the sex scandals?

It's similar to how I feel that if they can find an authentic way to do it, the Democrats should try wrapping themselves in the American flag twice as tightly as the Republicans. Why should one party be portrayed as salt-of-the-earth citizens and the other as elite internationalists? Why allow them to dominate the narrative, as Republicans being more patriotic, more aggressive, more strong than Democrats?

*Except when conservatives shriek about activist judges, and political correctness, and social engineering. But while they might demonize people as feminists and so forth, those people almost never actually behave in a strident manner that they're portrayed as.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:56 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Warren has several potential downsides of course

1)Possible risks turning a Dem senate seat red
2) Comes from a northeastern state
3) Some conservative democrats might balk at an all-female ticket for sexist reasons
4) White when Clinton has clearly depended extremely heavily on minority support during the nomination process

Unfortunately there aren't a ton of prefect options for VP assuming you might want a Latino Male from the Southwest for tactical reasons.

Tom Perez
Castro Brothers
would be the top candidates from this list but there are probably some dark horses even deeper in the Democratic bench.

However if there is a chance the Warren's seat could be protected somehow I could see things definitely going in her favor. Any odds on who might be her replacement? I assume someone like Katherine Clark because I'm not sure Joe Kennedy III is old enough yet.
posted by vuron at 9:07 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


FLOTUS owns Trump in a he-shall-not-be-named way

Apply ice to the affected area.

Never Has an Argument Been So Comprehensively Refuted

Apply iceberg to the affected area.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:05 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


It really sucks that being VP is such a terrible job that someone who everyone loves and who should be a consensus second in command candidate can't leave her job because of the math. If it was a Democratic governor picking the successor everyone would agree that she should be the nominee. But everyone is so worried about the balance that she can't do what everyone wants her to do.
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:20 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary:

True progressives, as opposed to the Vichy Left, recognize that the Clintons only helped these inequities along

Ignoring the fact that Hillary is not her husband, shouldn't the "Vichy Left" be the Democrats who want to collaborate with the fascist guy, not the ones who want to defeat him? I think their analogy is backwards.
posted by zachlipton at 11:21 PM on June 3, 2016 [27 favorites]


Also, what's a "true progressive?" Any relation to a True Scotsman?
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:42 PM on June 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


If they are anything like "Yves Smith" a true progressive is a rich white person who made their fortune at Goldman Sachs before finding the true religion. And now runs a management consulting firm. Unsurprisingly, such a person will do just fine under a President Trump.
posted by Justinian at 11:45 PM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


Oh I can't even...
Trump is going to rubber stamp the entire Republican agenda so if you are going to vote for him over Clinton then just fucking call yourself a Republican and be done with it.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:47 AM on June 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


There are fucking dudebro anarchists swearing Trump will be worse than Clinton because at least he won't drone bomb. Let's just agree everyone is awful and nothing is good forever.
posted by corb at 2:48 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I swear to god you fuckers if you tell me one more time about the inevitable revolution Trump will bring I will stick your vanguardist ass somewhere they will never find you.
posted by corb at 2:49 AM on June 4, 2016 [26 favorites]


It's just click bait. Can we not have that sort of crap in here please?
posted by skewed at 4:32 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


It really sucks that being VP is such a terrible job that someone who everyone loves and who should be a consensus second in command candidate can't leave her job because of the math.
Don't think of VP as being second-in-command. Think of it as being the president's understudy. It's a good way for ambitious politicians to raise their profile in preparation for a presidential run, but it doesn't have any real power unless the president dies or resigns. Warren is going to be 75 in 8 years, and I don't think it makes sense for her to twiddle her thumbs for two terms in anticipation of possibly running for president later. I think her talents would be better used as something like Secretary of the Treasury.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:17 AM on June 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


As much as I am not a fan of Warren as VP (because I want her to continue kicking ass as my Senator), there might be a way to avoid a Republican appointee to her seat if it comes to pass. Apparently Harry Reid has thought it out.
posted by danapiper at 5:34 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Pretty much everybody wants Warren on the ticket. Except, as far as anybody can tell, Elizabeth Warren herself

And the Clinton machine. The VP will be a centrist with a track record of loyalty to the Clintons.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:52 AM on June 4, 2016


You still have to trust the people of Massachusetts to elect a Democrat, and the last time they were in similar circumstances they voted in Scott Fucking Brown and handed the US to McConnell.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:55 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Maybe Martha Coakley can run again. She's due for a win.
posted by octothorpe at 5:58 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Crazy idea: Olympia Snowe. Throw a bone to moderate Rs.
posted by Talez at 6:01 AM on June 4, 2016


Republicans, moderate or otherwise, get no fucking bones this election. They've demonstrated over and over again throughout Obama's administration that they cannot be relied on to participate in the process of seeking compromise, and before that they put the worst President in the history of the US into office. They have NOW somehow managed to nominate a guy who will make GWB, fucking idiot child that he was, look like Lincoln if he manages to get elected.

As a political force they have absolved themselves entirely of credibility. They have relinquished any claim to a right to participate in the business of governing like responsible people. Realistically we can't avoid having to deal with them, but nobody should make any kind of compromise with these fuckers before they absolutely have to.
posted by Ipsifendus at 6:39 AM on June 4, 2016 [39 favorites]


Fingers crossed not, but you know she's at least considering it.
posted by Artw at 7:01 AM on June 4, 2016


There is absolutely no way the Clinton political machine is going to nominate a Republican. Hillary considers Republicans the enemy she is most proud of making. She does not throw them bones.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:06 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


the Clinton machine [...] the Clintons [...] the Clinton political machine

I ask this in all seriousness: why does it seem that so many of Clinton's opponents, whether on the left or right, are so unwilling to engage with her as an individual person?

It seems as though there is a constant urge to deny her...I don't know... agency? person-ness? ... by trying to make her out to be part of something--frequently something inhuman and mechanical---rather than, you know, an actual human.

I honestly can't think of another individual politician who gets this treatment.

Maybe we talk about the Chicago political machine, but Chicago is a place not a person. We don't talk about a Kennedy machine, or even a Bush machine, but somehow Hillary Clinton gets extra special dehumanizing? Seriously, what is up with that?
posted by dersins at 7:27 AM on June 4, 2016 [35 favorites]


We don't talk about a Kennedy machine, or even a Bush machine, but somehow Hillary Clinton gets extra special dehumanizing? Seriously, what is up with that?

Well I dunno about Bush because that was really a Rovian cyborg not a machine, but people definitely talked about the Kennedy machine back in the day, and the Daley machine, the "Boss" Tweed machine, and so on. Sometimes they're associated with places, and generally this is for more localized political machines, like those of Tammany Hall, Chicago, but, especially in the era of the Bosses (now basically over), associating the machine with a person was common. Clinton works at a national level, not a local one, it would be hard to associate her political apparatus with a particular place.

There's all sorts of sexism going on with HRC, this isn't an example of it.
posted by dis_integration at 7:34 AM on June 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Here's a nice vintage, 1979, example of the Kennedy Machine
posted by dis_integration at 7:38 AM on June 4, 2016


Machine Politics. Go read your William Kennedy. Rather than the fiction, I suggest starting with "O' Albany"
posted by mikelieman at 7:39 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's a nice vintage, 1979, example of the Kennedy Machine

But I'm not talking about 1979. I'm talking about 2016, since that is when we are living at the moment.
posted by dersins at 7:40 AM on June 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Machine, when it worked, was a wonderful thing.

Too bad we ended up with Samaritan.
posted by mikelieman at 7:40 AM on June 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


There's all sorts of sexism going on with HRC, this isn't an example of it.

I am not suggesting this is sexism, necessarily. It is, however, unquestionably a way of othering.
posted by dersins at 7:41 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Edit window expired, but I would have linked to this review:

A CITY AND ITS MACHINE
By Thomas Fleming
Published: January 1, 1984

O ALBANY! Improbable City of Political Wizards, Fearless Ethnics, Spectacular Aristocrats, Splendid Nobodies, and Underrated Scoundrels. By William Kennedy. Illustrated. 402 pp. New York: The Washington Park Press/The Viking Press. $25.

During the 1960's, when I was writing a series of novels about the Irish-American politics and passions of a city that loosely resembled my birthplace, Jersey City, I used to get letters from readers congratulating me for my penetrating grasp of Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Kansas City, Hartford - and Albany. I once got a letter from a woman who was sure I was writing about Omaha.

posted by mikelieman at 7:46 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]




I've been cruising on this tide of *yeah Hillz [insert probably better unspoken violent metaphor here] to Trump* in her latest speech and then I was listening to I think? Adam Davidson on the Slate political podcast and the dude was all, *yeah maybe Trump has a very small chance of winning, let's say 10% for sake of argument. Now, what if you said, 'there's a 10% chance of nuclear war' how reassuring would that be* and I was like o shit right.
posted by angrycat at 7:53 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Right, yes, mikelieman, I understand that "machine politics" is and was a thing. I am not trying to deny that. But, as you can see in that review, it is generally used to describe or refer to a system --whether associated with a place, an ethnic group, a political party, etc.-- rather than being used to avoid addressing / approaching / confronting a single politician as an actual, individual human.
posted by dersins at 7:53 AM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is there a way we could refrain from calling Secretary Clinton "Hillz"?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:56 AM on June 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think we're all aware of the existence (in the past, and now in much, much reduced form) of local political machines. I'm also really familiar with the use of the word "machine" as a slur against Democratic politicians, especially ones who come from cities. But I don't think that the term "machine," which refers to a specific local political phenomenon, has much to do with Hillary Clinton.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:56 AM on June 4, 2016


But I'm not talking about 1979. I'm talking about 2016, since that is when we are living at the moment.

In this moment I'm not talking about the Kennedy machine because we are living in this moment in which the Clinton machine is the one with the power.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:57 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


We're going to be talking about "the Clinton White House" even though that doesn't address her as an individual human either, won't we?
posted by XMLicious at 7:59 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


rather than being used to avoid addressing / approaching / confronting a single politician as an actual, individual human.

Well, there's a reason for this. It takes a village, as it were. To succeed in national politics you have to surround yourself with people of action and empower them to act on their own. There are too many fires for any one person to put out on their own. That's the political machine: the army of subordinates who seem to act as if automatically, machine like, in response to political events. The mistake is saying we're voting for Clinton or Trump. We're voting for them, and the people that surround them.
posted by dis_integration at 8:01 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Huh. Then should we also be talking about the Sanders machine?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:06 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


If you see it that way, sure. But personally I don't really call an organization a machine without some long term success first.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:07 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I guess it's a question of how obedient ("well oiled") and efficient the machine is. I get the sense that Bernie is being carried along by his "machine" more than sitting at the control panel. I guess there's always a degree of this dialectic between the leader and the followers. Clinton seems capable of commanding a high degree of loyalty from Democratic party leaders. That early, invisible primary work of shutting out any other establishment rivals (like Biden) feels very "machine-like" in the classical sense.

But yeah it's a matter of perception. Machines aren't all bad, anyway, and if you compare them to the current state of political trench-warfare, a machine system is one in which shit gets done. HRC has mentioned before that she took LBJ as a model, and in a way, that's the most encouraging thing about her to me. LBJ got shit done, because he knew how to turn the levers.
posted by dis_integration at 8:13 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ignoring the fact that Hillary is not her husband, shouldn't the "Vichy Left" be the Democrats who want to collaborate with the fascist guy, not the ones who want to defeat him? I think their analogy is backwards.

She's referring to people like Krugman and other so-called mainstream progressives when she uses the term Vichy Left. Clinton falls into that category in the economic sphere, as does Hollande in France for those who are following events in that country. I've been reading naked capitalism for years now as a regular part of my blog roundup and one of the reasons I do so is because, like Metafilter, it's a community full of smart people--many of whom are in fact progressive, only more focused on economics and political economy. Spend a little time in the archives, or read ECONned: How Unenlightened Self-Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:13 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


That's the political machine: the army of subordinates who seem to act as if automatically, machine like, in response to political events. The mistake is saying we're voting for Clinton or Trump. We're voting for them, and the people that surround them.

So why is it that there are about 7 times as many google results for "Clinton machine" as there are for "Obama machine?" Or about 5 times as many as there are for "Bush machine" (most of at the least the first couple pages of which, btw, appear to be about the shitty mall-grunge band)? Or, for that matter, well over ten times as many as there are for "Kennedy machine?"

Stop pretending that Clinton isn't being approached / treated / engaged-with differently. She absolutely fucking is.
posted by dersins at 8:16 AM on June 4, 2016 [20 favorites]


I don't know what kind of conclusions we can draw from the number of google hits on a phrase, especially given the transformations in web based journalism since 2008.

I'm not pretending anything about her not being treated differently. I just don't think there's something particularly nefarious about the phrase "Clinton machine". And I'm gonna leave it there because this seems to be getting caustic.
posted by dis_integration at 8:20 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


That early, invisible primary work of shutting out any other establishment rivals (like Biden)

Biden decided not to run because of his son's death. There was no shutting out in his case.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:24 AM on June 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


"Clinton machine" has long been a phrase used by the Right to tie Bill to the long-dead political machines of the liberal cities, even though he was from Arkansas. White House Travel Office, Vince Foster, Filegate... it was always about how the nefarious Clintons had their surrogates and henchmen and stooges to try and cover up Just. How. Awful. They. Were.

And to be clear, they were nothing like the old machines of the Rust Belt.

When the Right first start hammering on Obama, it was all about Chicago politics. Similar metaphor. But notably, they never put Obama at the center. They had him as some sort of puppet of Daley via Rahm Emanuel. It never stuck, though, not the way "Kenyan Muslim Fascist Communist Hitler" did.
posted by dw at 8:29 AM on June 4, 2016 [8 favorites]




That may be why the Republicans were kinda blindsided by Trump; while attacking Democrats as alleged "strongmen", they didn't realize how open their own base would be to a strongman of their own.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:33 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Republicans have always had a thing for strongmen. They just thought their strongmen weren't like those bosses of the past because Republicanism is, at its origin, standing in opposition of the political machines. I mean, they're not fixing elections or doing the bidding of other powers. And then they were.

You always think you're safe from becoming what you stand in opposition of right up to the moment after you become it.
posted by dw at 8:37 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


attacking Democrats as alleged "strongmen", they didn't realize how open their own base would be to a strongman of their own

If only there were a word for that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:38 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Stop pretending that Clinton isn't being approached / treated / engaged-with differently. She absolutely fucking is.

It would be treating them differently for me not to acknowledge the dynastic and long term nature of Clinton family politics. Two very close family members being elected to the most powerful position in the world are not always going to be talked about individually, but sometimes as a group. It would be the first time in history we ignored that sort of connection if we ignored it now.

That doesn't mean a person who talks about the group refuses to acknowledge the individuals. I mean, you quoted me three times saying stuff like machine but snipped away, "Hillary considers Republicans the enemy she is most proud of making. She does not throw them bones."

I refer to Hillary as an individual because I believe that is a belief Bill does not share. I only refer to the Clintons as a group when I mean the Clintons as a group. There is no unwillingness to acknowledge Hillary as a person. I talk about her as an individual all the time.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:35 AM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


When people talked about political machines, they meant multi-decade operations built around government jobs doled to loyal members -- city positions, toll-booth money takers, etc. There's no sign of that with the Clintons. An ad-hoc network of well-connected Democrats, which overlaps somewhat with Obama's ad-hoc network? Sure. But that's not a machine.

And neither has anything to do with the depersonalization of Hillary which is so blatant I can't believe anyone disputes it. Unlike dersins, I have no reluctance to call it out as straight-out sexism, though most perpetrators don't realize it.

People just aren't used to women leaders. They can't wrap their heads around it, and the result is all kinds of vaguely insane rationalization about how "you're doing it wrong!!!" She's nothing like a robot or a warmonger or a corporate shill. But she gets tone arguments ten times a day, and it's gotten deep into her head and she's deeply self-conscious and cautious as a result. It's painful to watch.
posted by msalt at 10:30 AM on June 4, 2016 [30 favorites]


Yeah my immediate perception of "Clinton machine" was "oh those Clintons are career politicians, they know Politics real thorough, they are totally the Establishment", and while I didn't auto-register that as "but sexism", I do wonder why I don't think of, say, the Biden machine, or the Sanders machine, or, hell, even the Bush machine.

Why are the Clintons our iconic career politicians in a system so thoroughly full of scummy people? And is it related in any way to the sexist perception of Hillary as a calculated, dishonest monster? (answer: yes probably)
posted by rorgy at 10:37 AM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]




When people talked about political machines, they meant multi-decade operations built around government jobs doled to loyal members -- city positions, toll-booth money takers, etc. There's no sign of that with the Clintons

This is what people mean when they say political machine.

A political machine is a political organization in which an authoritative boss or small group commands the support of a corps of supporters and businesses (usually campaign workers), who receive rewards for their efforts. The machine's power is based on the ability of the workers to get out the vote for their candidates on election day.

Although these elements are common to most political parties and organizations, they are essential to political machines, which rely on hierarchy and rewards for political power, often enforced by a strong party whip structure. Machines sometimes have a political boss, often rely on patronage, the spoils system, "behind-the-scenes" control, and longstanding political ties within the structure of a representative democracy. Machines typically are organized on a permanent basis instead of for a single election or event. The term may have a pejorative sense referring to corrupt political machines.[1]


It is reasonable for one to view the Clinton organization as such a machine.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:00 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


It is reasonable for one to view the Clinton organization as such a machine.

unless you're considering the DNC to be a machine, i'm really not sure this fits well - it's not like the clintons have a chicago like organization where they control a lot of offices and a whole spoil system
posted by pyramid termite at 11:10 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


It is reasonable for one to view the Clinton organization as such a machine.

Not if "one" refers repeatedly to the Clinton machine, but never to the Obama machine or the Biden machine or the Sanders machine or the Reid machine or the Kerry machine or the Boxer machine or the Shumer machine or the Trump machine or the Cruz machine or the Rubio machine or the Ryan machine or the Kasich machine or or or or or or.

It is the singling out here that is significant, this tendency to take Clinton specifically to task--to ascribe to her various nefarious and corrupt motives, and in so doing to use language that removes either her agency or her humanity or both--for things that literally every politician in the history of ever has done, is doing, and will continue to do.

Finally, if "one" is applying these truly epic double standards from the left, one should perhaps consider asking oneself why one is using the same dehumanizing attack language that has been deployed against Clinton for literally more a quarter century by those on the far right, who are--ostensibly--one's most bitter ideological opponents.
posted by dersins at 11:20 AM on June 4, 2016 [27 favorites]


I've already addressed why I view the Clinton organization as a machine and some other groups as not a machine.

It is the singling out here that is significant, this tendency to take Clinton specifically to task--to ascribe to her various nefarious and corrupt motives, and in so doing to use language that removes either her agency or her humanity or both--for things that literally every politician in the history of ever has done, is doing, and will continue to do.

This started because I said the Clintons value loyalty. I don't see that as a nefarious accusation. It's just common knowledge to me. You read political articles a lot and you will run into connected politicians saying it.

Democrats angle for power in Clinton administration: “The Clintons value loyalty. Anyone who has been in politics for a long time values loyalty,” said Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), a close ally of former President Bill Clinton. “For anyone who has been involved [in helping to elect Clinton], they can see this as an opportunity.”

The VP is not going to be someone who hasn't earned their spot on Team Clinton. I don't think it's nefarious to want a VP you trust. It's the best spot for someone boring you trust. That's what was best about Biden.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:41 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think the term Clinton machine is kinda a compliment myself.
posted by museum of fire ants at 11:48 AM on June 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Not if "one" refers repeatedly to the Clinton machine, but never to the Obama machine or the Biden machine or the Sanders machine or the Reid machine or the Kerry machine or the Boxer machine or the Shumer machine or the Trump machine or the Cruz machine or the Rubio machine or the Ryan machine or the Kasich machine or or or or or or.

You would if any of those people had any of the same level of success of the political cadre that came out of the Clinton White House. I'm sure Obama Machine will get some use as a term of criticism and endearment.

People constantly talk about the Obama machine, generally in how professional it is, as in the organization that became Organizing for America, Axelrod and his people, Rahm Emanuel -- a lot of hold-overs from the Clinton administration, because that was really the only pool of experience new-President Obama could draw on, just as I'm sure Hillary Clinton will rely on some notable Obama figures. People talked about the Dean Machine, his failed presidential campaign but also what he did at DNC. People talk about the Bush machine all the time, too -- it's why everyone expected we'd be talking about Jeb! right now instead of Trump, although the Rove mystique has worn off considerably -- everyone thought the Bush apparatus/network would be unbeatable. These machines aren't really the old sort of political machinery of patronage politics, but they definitely exist. Perhaps using this as criticism of Hillary is rooted in sexism, perhaps not; I don't think there's anything uniquely anti-Hillary about it.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:44 PM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Puerto Rico primary is tomorrow for Team D. Should put Clinton within spitting distance of clinching the nomination. Just 3 more days of this crap.
posted by Justinian at 12:48 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh! The US Virgin Islands primary is today. Sorry for ignoring you and your 7 delegates, USVI!
posted by Justinian at 12:55 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Like the Onion in real time: Trump shares a tweeted photo of black "Trump supporters." Except the photo is lifted from a 2015 article that had nothing to do with Trump, or even politics.
posted by dersins at 12:59 PM on June 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yeah, I think the reason we talk about the Clinton machine is because she's so damn good at mobilizing people and her people tend to maintain loyalty. I don't think Biden or Ryan have machines, though I bet Ryan at least would sell his soul for one, if he hadn't already. Clinton, love her or hate her, is an extremely successful politician.
posted by corb at 1:00 PM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


unless you're considering the DNC to be a machine

People don't?!
posted by Apocryphon at 1:46 PM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah, I think the reason we talk about the Clinton machine is because she's so damn good at mobilizing people and her people tend to maintain loyalty.

But this use of machine to mean, essentially, "well-oiled ground game" is kind of revisionist. It's not really consonant with the way the term is--and has been--generally used, which is as a pejorative with strong connotations of corruption, and certainly doesn't track with statements along the lines of--and I'm paraphrasing here--how the "Clinton machine" would never allow certain VP candidates on the ticket.
posted by dersins at 1:47 PM on June 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


So, hilariously, I just got a request for my bio from the RNC, so they can provide "targeted media opportunities". Any idea what (true) things I should put in that are most likely to flag to them that I am trustworthy and should be trusted with media access? (For my #nevertrump nefarious plans, natch)
posted by corb at 2:01 PM on June 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Count me in the camp that "Clinton machine" is used more frequently about the Clintons (and these days mostly about Hillary Clinton) and is reads (intended or not) as a pejorative. The first set of google results for "Obama machine" is largely from right-wing sources and I doubt they mean it in a complimentary fashion. The first page of results for "Clinton machine" have quite a few sources I read as largely left wing. As has been noted earlier in the thread, unless you're like 45+, you went through your formative years in or after an era when the Clintons were demonized for everything and Hillary in particularly gendered ways.

Regardless though, I wish we didn't use the term. It's too loaded with negative connotations from eras when political bosses literally handed out jobs and patronage. I think it's important for campaigns to have well-organized and efficient organizations but calling them "machines" is not really fair, as it's a necessity of modern campaigning at the presidential level. Obama's organization became particularly good at it. To reduce it to skeezy city bosses who hand out plum contracts to their supporters just feels wrong.
posted by R343L at 2:08 PM on June 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


corb Probably emphasizing your military service and immigrant status?
posted by sotonohito at 2:08 PM on June 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


Tell them you have successfully infiltrated DNC internet brainquarters in your spare time. :)
posted by bukvich at 2:10 PM on June 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


I think what the RNC most wants to hear from people right now is that the most important thing in the world is to defeat Hillary Clinton. So I would try and focus on that even if you think the best (only) route first involves dumping Trump, you don't necessarily have to highlight that part.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:15 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders: 'The Democratic National Convention will be a contested convention'
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday vowed to continue his fight for the Democratic nomination beyond the primary season, telling reporters at a news conference in Los Angeles that he plans to go after Hillary Clinton's superdelegates.
Oh, Bernie.
posted by Justinian at 2:16 PM on June 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


Welp.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:18 PM on June 4, 2016


I also plan to go after Clinton's superdelegates. I think Sanders and I have about the same chances there.
posted by Superplin at 2:18 PM on June 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


Jesus Christ. This is the same guy that was bitching about superdelegates in February, right?
posted by Talez at 2:19 PM on June 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


So even ignoring superdelegates (just pretend they don't exist or that they were assigned in similar proportions as their respective state pledged delegates), isn't Sanders extremely unlikely to get even close to a majority of delegates? As in, isn't he hundreds of pledged delegates behind at this point so he'd have to win California by like 70% to even get close to even?
posted by R343L at 2:20 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's why he's going after superdelegates. Because he can't catch Clinton in the pledged delegate category.
posted by Justinian at 2:21 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


More importantly (and more hypocritically), he's going after superdelegates because he can't catch Clinton in the "people who cast votes" category.
posted by dersins at 2:24 PM on June 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


So many sighs. If Hillary Clinton were a Donald Trump, then I'd be cheering Sanders on to try to use the "undemocratic" rules to make sure she didn't get the nomination -- as has been said many times there must be a lot of Republicans wishing they had superdelegates. But she's just not like Trump, unless we also want to say that nearly all people currently in national political office are indistinguishable from Trump.
posted by R343L at 2:28 PM on June 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


A thought I had recently. What exactly does it mean to be a Republican at this moment in time? Small government, lower taxes, social conservatism, free trade... and yet Trump has, at various times in the past few months, taken positions antithetical to all of those things. He is for eminent domain, for raising capital gains taxes, for Planned Parenthood, for trade protectionism. So what is a Republican? What do they stand for?

It seems to me that the reason why Republicans coalesced so quickly behind Trump has nothing to do with any strongly held core belief besides one: "we are the party of the not-liberals." That is basically their only ethos. It's not a party, it's an anti-party.

And this strikes me as a uniquely promising opportunity for Democrats to push themselves as the party OF something. Hammer it in every state, every election, everywhere. Ask what Republicans stand for, and in every race, make them answer the question. What a great opportunity for Democrats to put a stake in the ground and say "This is what we're about" -- and then ask disaffected Republicans and Independents to join the team that stands FOR something instead of simply -- and only -- against something.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:38 PM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think you may be ignoring the white elephant in the room.
posted by dersins at 2:43 PM on June 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


Until Wednesday we can't be sure this isn't simply keep-up-the-morale talk for the folks down in the trenches. It'd probably be hard to motivate folks saying "yeah, we're gonna drop out on Tuesday". So I hold out hope.
posted by Justinian at 2:47 PM on June 4, 2016 [6 favorites]




I really want to believe Sanders is saying that only to keep spirits up, but I won't put any money on it. He's a professional politician. That means he should understand the possible impact of such a claim on the rest of the race, and he should be able to dodge the issue if he was being asked about it directly by reporters. That coupled with his behavior in recent weeks leaves me inclined to take that sort of statement seriously.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:06 PM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


[Hey, flagging a dozen comments in a row apparently because you disagree with their politics is not a productive use of my time or yours. If there's a serious running problem in a thread that requires more than 3 or 4 flags, please hit the contact form and let me know what it is.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 3:12 PM on June 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


So Clinton is going to break the the second biggest glass ceiling to become the first female major party nominee on Tuesday, and Sanders is going to fight to overturn the overwhelming will of the voters - primarily women and PoC - to give it to a white man? How progressive.
posted by chris24 at 3:17 PM on June 4, 2016 [24 favorites]


Unbelieveable. I wish he'd drop the sanctimonious playacting and own up to his arrogance and presumption from here on in. Any talk of "the people" is hollow from someone who means to attempt an override 3 million popular votes. He can't conceive that "the people" heard and understood his message just fine, and weren't convinced. He could give a shit about carrying forward the voice of "the people" - it's only been about him and his smaller number of people for weeks now.
posted by EatTheWeak at 3:29 PM on June 4, 2016 [22 favorites]


I ordered my Hillary shirt two nights ago. It can't get here fast enough.
posted by EatTheWeak at 3:36 PM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Welp, there's the last teeny tiny shred of respect I had for Bernie, completely annihilated. Way to prove that you're exactly like all the other politicians you constantly rail against, pal.
posted by palomar at 3:53 PM on June 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


Worse, in a way, because he tries to do it from this place of unimpeachable moral purity that's supposed to shame and instruct "the establishment."
posted by EatTheWeak at 3:57 PM on June 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think Elizabeth Warren just stuck her toe in it:
“I’m a superdelegate and I don’t believe in superdelegates,” she told a Politico reporter Saturday at the Massachusetts State Democratic Convention in Lowell, Mass. "I don’t think superdelegates ought to sway the election.”
posted by zachlipton at 3:59 PM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


That's a pretty roundabout way of endorsing Clinton but that's still what it amounts to at this point.
posted by Justinian at 4:02 PM on June 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Hey, at least we've got all this popcorn we ordered for the contested convention we thought we were getting.
posted by fullerine at 4:08 PM on June 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Heh, right. Back when there were two Democratic candidates I trusted, and when I was legit sure that an election where the left wouldn't squander a tactical advantage against the right for the first time in my voting life had finally arrived.
posted by EatTheWeak at 4:27 PM on June 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Part of me is still hoping he's capable of the magnificent turn that Clinton did to support Obama. But I'm afraid this means that at some point in the primary process he started to believe his own hype, that he is the our only hope. I think this reflects poorly on his judgment, and risks undermining some of the very positive contributions/reforms he was purportedly promoting.

Overall though, I guess I still have confidence that
a. Hillary's got this, including emerging strong even from a contested convention and running a powerful campaign
b. A significant subset of Sanders supporters will both move to meaningfully support Clinton's national campaign and to continue the work of advancing the best of Sanders' economic justice ideals both within the party and more broadly
c. Democrats, progressives, and liberals will move forward with a greater appreciation of the importance of respecting and centering the engagement of not only young people but also women, African Americans , and diverse communities of all ages.
posted by Salamandrous at 4:31 PM on June 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


Jesus Christ. This is the same guy that was bitching about superdelegates in February, right?

Yeah.

And, listen, I agree with the idea that the way the Democrats apportion their superdelegates is scummy and undemocratic. But when Bernie said they were throwing the election to Hillary back then, he was wrong about that. And turning around to say they should overturn the will of the people now is disgusting and hypocritical.
posted by tobascodagama at 4:44 PM on June 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


Fun facts: Bernie Sanders is a superdelegate.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:52 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, i'm SUPER sick of the whole "THE PEOPLE" thing. The people want you in charge? So... the millions of people who haven't voted for you aren't people? Fuuuuuuuuck that shit.
posted by palomar at 4:54 PM on June 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


I agree with the idea that the way the Democrats apportion their superdelegates is scummy and undemocratic.

I do, too. My problems with Sander are 1) he complains about the rules even though he knew the rules going in (or should have). 2) He only complains about the rules when changing them would benefit him. It'd be great to see him lead an ongoing campaign to improve the primary process after this election, but somehow I think he's going to forget all about it after Clinton gets the nomination.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:57 PM on June 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


I actually have no problem with number 1. It's perfectly legit to say "I'm going to play by these rules, but they're crappy and should be changed." Number 2, though, seems like rank hypocrisy. You can't whine about how superdelegates are illegitimate in January and then say that they should swing the election to you in June.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:00 PM on June 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


But even every proposed change to the process wouldn't make a difference here, and that's been true for months:
  • Do away with superdelgates - Clinton wins
  • Force superdelegates to support their state's pick winner-take-all - Clinton wins
  • Force superdegelates to support their state's picks proportionally - Clinton wins
  • Force superdelegates to support the national popular vote winner winner-take-all - Clinton wins
  • Force superdelegates to support the national popular vote winners proportionally - Clinton wins
  • Whine that superdelegates announced their preference early in the cycle, thus somehow stacking the deck against Sanders - Clinton wins: superdelegates can still change their mind (see also: 2008) and it's not exactly unexpected or wrong that elected officials might endorse presidential candidates in their party. The fact that Sanders managed to secure very few endorsements is not a problem the system can or should try to solve.
The only reform that could actually make a difference in this election is "superdelegates ignore millions of voters and the fact that I've been calling them corrupt for months." The only way to do that is to leave the delegate system exactly as it is.

It's one thing to say the rules should be changed for future elections, and there are many reasons why that's a good argument, but it's not the one he's been making. The argument he's making is "make me the nominee anyway," and the only path to do that explicitly involves not changing the system. You don't get to argue that the system is undemocratic and corrupt and must be changed, while at the same time insisting that it stay the same so it could perform an undemocratic and corrupt function to your benefit.
posted by zachlipton at 5:15 PM on June 4, 2016 [29 favorites]


And, listen, I agree with the idea that the way the Democrats apportion their superdelegates is scummy and undemocratic. But when Bernie said they were throwing the election to Hillary back then, he was wrong about that. And turning around to say they should overturn the will of the people now is disgusting and hypocritical.

Bernie's hypocrisy here truly is terrible but superdelegates have a good use. They are there to act as a party emergency brake. If Trump tried to run as a democrat with the same populist policies the superdelegates would be there to steer the party away from certain disaster as they most certainly should.

We need to stop thinking leaders must obey the will of the people at all times. Leaders aren't slaves beholden to the will of the people. Their job is to lead and act in the best interests of the people even if We the People™ think it's a bad idea at the time. Good parents don't let their kids eat ice cream instead of vegetables. Good leaders don't blindly follow terrible populist trends and say it's what the people want.

Hell, that's why we have an entire judiciary branch; To make sure the foxes can't vote the sheep for dinner.
posted by Talez at 5:21 PM on June 4, 2016 [18 favorites]


I do wonder if it might be better to forbid (at least some?) superdelegates from announcing preferences/allegiances too early in the cycle of primaries, or to forbid candidates from approaching them too early. I don't exactly know how you'd do that, though. I actually think superdelegates are valuable because they a) give weight to the preferences of the downticket party professionals who have to share a ticket with the headliner and b) theoretically help stop things like Trump. And so far, by convention, they have thrown their weight behind the popular vote winner, giving that person a clear and decisive margin even if the voting was close. If they had a history of flouting the will of the voters, I might feel differently. But of course of Trump were running on the D side and splitting the vote 50/50ish with Clinton or Sanders, I'd feel REAL GOOD about the superdelegates throwing their weight behind the non-Trump candidate.

I'm not totally sure how you both ensure the power to provide an institutional corrective to a candidate like Trump and make sure they can't possibly use that power to override a legit-but-outsider candidate, other than strong social norms, which are only strong until they aren't.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:22 PM on June 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm not totally sure how you both ensure the power to provide an institutional corrective to a candidate like Trump and make sure they can't possibly use that power to override a legit-but-outsider candidate, other than strong social norms, which are only strong until they aren't.

That's why the power of the institution is doled out to 715 individuals each with their own agency and conscience rather than a single voting bloc. That's why 46 of them are supporting Bernie over Hillary despite the landslide popular vote towards Hillary. It's not perfect but it's probably the least shitty way of doing things.
posted by Talez at 5:37 PM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm not totally sure how you both ensure the power to provide an institutional corrective to a candidate like Trump and make sure they can't possibly use that power to override a legit-but-outsider candidate, other than strong social norms, which are only strong until they aren't.

Yeah, that's the problem. I think it's legitimate to use superdelegates to ensure that the winning candidate actually has broad party support. I'm not thinking of a 50/50 splits, but what about a race that split 40/30/30 in pledged delegates? I'd want the superdelegates to be powerful enough to throw the election to one of the 30% candidates in that case, if one of them were genuinely a better choice or if the candidate with the plurality of the delegates had less of the popular vote than one of the others. But I don't want superdelegates powerful enough to overthrow a 60/40 majority.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:38 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Caucuses? Really bad when Hillary wins Iowa and Nevada by narrow margins, apparently fucking awesome when Sanders wins them by large margins.

Superdelegates? Undemocratic until Sanders needs them to somehow undo his pledged delegate losses.

Democratic voting? Great if it's in a state that Bernie won but awful if it's from the south or any apparently any state with a large minority population.

It's undeniable that there are elements of the nomination process that favor a candidate with deep party ties and financial resources and I think that would be a valid criticism but at the current time Sander's stubborn refusal to face facts and his rank hypocrisy merely undermine any resonance that the message might have gotten if he had accepted defeat gracefully and maintained his messaging even when it might disadvantage him. But he's basically totally given up the moral high ground and diluted possible suggestions for reform.
posted by vuron at 5:43 PM on June 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


But I don't want superdelegates powerful enough to overthrow a 60/40 majority.

With current delegate and superdelegate numbers a candidate would need 41% of the vote for every superdelegate to get them over the line so that already doesn't happen.
posted by Talez at 5:43 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


The thing is that the superdelegates are actually elected. Every Democratic Senator, Congressman, and Governor gets to be one. Then there are a few hundred that are elected by the DNC, including every state's chair and vice-chair, who also get elected by party members. Plus a handful of former Presidents, Congressional leadership, etc...

An interesting reform proposal would be to eliminate the DNC superdelegates and just have the Senators, Congressmen, and Governors as superdelegates (and figuring out an appropriate amount by which to weight their vote). These officials are all directly elected and are routinely trusted to carry out representational democracy in their jobs, so they ought to be able to preform the same function at the convention. And since they're people we know and elected, people who vote on all kinds of stuff impacting us, their role in the process ought to seem less undemocratic than having state party chairs we never hear about until the death threats start.
posted by zachlipton at 5:49 PM on June 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


For states with next to no Democratic representation does that mean they don't get any representation with super delegates? I mean yeah there aren't a ton of democrats in Wyoming or Utah but it seems fair for those that live there to at least influence the process.
posted by vuron at 6:01 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Clinton gains approx 550 delegates in this last sweep of primaries, that would put her over the top. If that happens, then Sanders should suspend his candidacy. If not, then off to the convention he goes.

I mean, I understand why folks have been calling for Sanders to drop out since basically day one, but why castigate him so much when the fact of the matter is that Clinton hasn't won yet? It's a process and people ought to be patient with the process.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:25 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Patience" is what got him his pass from mid March, when the nomination slipped out of his reach in real terms, until today, when it's painfully obvious that his talk about keeping Trump out of office was just that, talk. I think that on the whole, the corrupt $hillary establishment has been exceedingly, exasperatingly patient with Senator Sanders already.
posted by EatTheWeak at 6:35 PM on June 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


If Clinton gains approx 550 delegates in this last sweep of primaries...

She's 67 delegates short of the 2,383 she needs. She'll get it with New Jersey on Tuesday and will be the presumptive nominee, just like Obama was in 2008.
posted by chris24 at 6:36 PM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


My major concern is that the Sanders campaign seems more oriented towards disrupting the convention now. Which would fit in with actions such as attacking Barney Frank.

Or in other words, proving once again that there's nothing a women can accomplish that an old white guy can't try to screw up.
posted by happyroach at 6:37 PM on June 4, 2016 [20 favorites]


African-American who got shout-out from Trump responds
"I was thrilled that he gave blacks positive press by talking about one of the (supporters) that was at his event ... a black guy who beat up a white guy at his rally."
Personally I don't think sucker-punching a guy who's already being escorted out by security is positive press, but so it goes.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:38 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


If Clinton gains approx 550 delegates in this last sweep of primaries, that would put her over the top. If that happens, then Sanders should suspend his candidacy. If not, then off to the convention he goes.

I mean, I understand why folks have been calling for Sanders to drop out since basically day one, but why castigate him so much when the fact of the matter is that Clinton hasn't won yet? It's a process and people ought to be patient with the process.


Because, since literally a month ago, it has been methematically impossible for Sanders to win the pledged delegate count. She has been "over the top" for a month. Even if Sanders won 100% of the delegates in every state for the past month (including the remaining primaries), he could not have won on pledged delegates. There simply weren't enough delegates left to make up the difference.

The only reason to go off to the convention is to try to convince the superdelgates, who have overwhelmingly backed Clinton and aren't inclined to support a candidate who has repeatedly called them corrupt, to overturn the will of the millions more voters (as measured by delegates or the popular vote, doesn't matter) who voted for Clinton over Sanders.

In short, patience doesn't really apply anymore. A month after being mathematically eliminated is a reasonable amount of time to drop out. Continued talk that he's going to somehow convince the superdelegates makes it even worse. It's over.
posted by zachlipton at 6:44 PM on June 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


why castigate him so much when the fact of the matter is that Clinton hasn't won yet?

because he's gone back on his word that he wouldn't try to fuck shit up if he wasn't the nominee, that's why.
posted by palomar at 6:46 PM on June 4, 2016 [24 favorites]


methematically impossible

I'm beginning to think that meth is the only possible explanation for Bernie math.
posted by chris24 at 6:49 PM on June 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Because, since literally a month ago, it has been methematically impossible for Sanders to win the pledged delegate count.

Since March 15th it's been impossible short of Hillary having a coronary.
posted by Talez at 6:57 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


What Bernie honestly is starting to remind me of is all the "would you like to buy a newspaper" socialists that used to hang out at every lefty protest event, that would weasel themselves into positions through stacking meetings and harassment of people supporting others. Not garden variety "people who believe in socialism", but the true believer activists who thought if they only put themselves in power, the world would be a better place.

That's why it doesn't matter what he does or how big his support is - because he thinks it's important enough the rules don't matter.

But Hillary Clinton is not Trump. Clinton v Romney? Sure, knock yourself out. V McCain? Sure, have fun. But when the opponent is this bad and you're like "no man she is worse" because she's insufficient at Leftist Credentials...you are being those guys.
posted by corb at 7:02 PM on June 4, 2016 [29 favorites]


why castigate him so much when the fact of the matter is that Clinton hasn't won yet?

She has won, effectively, and his campaign is (a) wasting money that could be spent on elections; (b) a shit-show; and (c) making the presumptive nominee look bad.

According to Wikipedia there are 781 pledged delegates Sanders could pick up if he won every single delegate from every single primary and caucus. That, plus his 1,500 existing pledged delegates, is 103 fewer than the number he would need to be nominated. There are still 145 superdelegate public endorsements up for grabs, so he'd need to win more than 70% of those in order to overturn the popular vote - which in itself wouldn't be a good thing.

You know how there are movies where the plucky underdogs beat the established champions through grit and unorthodox moves? And movies where the plucky underdogs are denied a victory because of corrupt machinations? Sanders is banking on a strategy where he's simultaneously the underdog who sweeps the remaining conventions and the beneficiary of corrupt machinations from the powers that be. It just doesn't work.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:04 PM on June 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


The other thing--and I had the same complaint about Clinton in 2008--is that his arguments are continually and demonstrably false. The superdelegates can change their vote whenever they want. If they bought into his argument that he's more electable because his poll numbers against Trump, they would've started to switch already. When he wins a couple of demographically-favorable states he says it's momentum, but won't say that after losing the Virgin Islands today, Puerto Rico tomorrow, and New Jersey on Tuesday.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:04 PM on June 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


When he wins a couple of demographically-favorable states he says it's momentum

I remember an email from the Bernie campaign on March 27th going "omg 5 out of 6 the last week" oblivious to the walloping they got the week before hand. Not only that but the elephant in the room was that even if they picked up all these small states the for sure ass kicking they'd see in the eastern seaboard were going to wipe them out which it did.
posted by Talez at 7:12 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Gotta read, hilarious:
‘I Can Watch It on TV’: Excuses for Republicans Skipping a Donald Trump Convention
[...] Scheduling conflicts seem to be a surprisingly common excuse for missing an event that was announced a year and a half ago. Others offered mushy noncommitments.

“Just as they’re firming up the schedule, it kind of looks like there’s a lot of stuff for me to do,” said Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, explaining why he probably couldn’t make it.

Asked if Mr. Trump had anything to do with his reluctance, Mr. Johnson, who is in a heated re-election campaign, broke into a big smile and said, “Oh, of course not.”

Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, a state Mr. Trump has said he believes the Republicans can wrest from Democrats this year, also might have more important things to do at home. “Michigan has some pressing challenges right now,” a spokeswoman said last week, “and state issues are his foremost priority.”[...]
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:13 PM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bill Weld mentions Hillary Rodham in a fun little introductory story. First minute of talk here. At the end of the presentation he also says he thinks Obama and Sec.Clinton had a good handle on foreign policy. (He also talks about a one world market or free global trade as a path forward). Not recommending watching the whole thing but he is an intriguing story teller. Suggest just the opening 50sec of this talk to get a further taste of his style. (He is a proponent of education but also sees charter schools as a fix if not the solution for unequal /prejudicial funding. So while there are things to disagree with, he isn't disagreeable because there is actual thought and want for betterment. Again, no need to watch the entire thing, but I found them to give some insight into what make him tick.

Secrecy, a few weeks ago I tried to watch some "news" on CNN and MSNBC of the primary results but tuned in too early ... got agitated by the breathless sensationalism, yelled at the information presenter on my screen "Do you do any fucking research?" and closed the tabs. Then I tried to answer my own question. I spend 3 days scrolling through FOIA logs from as many government departments as I could think of. I figured this would be a possible indication or measure of something. I was sort of surprised they don't have a central repository and it is each department that host their own. Also there is no standard format, some are PDF's others are word documents and still others I have no clue even how to open them (and this anything goes standard isn't different departments following different rules, the full array of styles can be found within a single fucking department, this is probably more a frustration in my lack of computer skill than actual layout problem, anyway ...) While I have no hard numbers and limiting my looking to CNN (although the logs themselves are short on detail (who made the request, when and a sentence or a few words on the nature and purpose (the majority pertain to legal cases) I found them interesting for the little stories you can read between the lines of the requests)) it is fair to say CNN requests annually are in the single digits. And I mean single digits after adding all the department requests together. Also if CNN submitted a request from two reporters and a producer it is logged as 3 separate requests for the same piece of information (sometimes), these I held in tally as a single event. So again, hard to strike a firm number, but requests are less than a monthly occurrence. I didn't really prove anything but sort of confirms they aren't digging for information that way at least.
posted by phoque at 7:26 PM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, Clinton tried a similar thing in 2008 with respect to superdelegates. Politicians gonna politician.
posted by lalex at 7:28 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I can't imagine by what sorcery or spells Bernie thinks he can win over the super delegates... they are effectively the establishment that he's been trash talking. Seems like if that vote switching ploy had any hope for success, he'd have been working harder to support down-ticket races, spent less time castigating party favorites like Frank and spent more time bridge building than bridge burning.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:56 PM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


If you haven't had your recommended daily allowance of weasel words in service of deliberately ignorant legalistic wanking today, read what Alberto "Christ, what an asshole" Gonzales has to say about the Trump v. Judge Curiel kerfuffle.
posted by peeedro at 7:57 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I agree to an extent, but 2008 was far closer, with Clinton kind of sort of not really maybe winning the popular vote. The popular vote was basically a tie, and Clinton won 48% of the pledged delegates. I'm glad the superdelegates didn't override the pledged delegate totals in 2008, but the situation is not the same now as it was then.

In any case, the real question is what Sanders does Tuesday night, Wednesday morning at the latest.
posted by zachlipton at 7:57 PM on June 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Hillary crushed Sanders in the USVI. 92% in St. Croix and 87% in St. Thomas. Bernie didn't get the 15% needed for viability so she'll take all 7 delegates.
posted by chris24 at 8:04 PM on June 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


North Korea endorses Trump.

/not The Onion.
posted by jamaro at 8:15 PM on June 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


And Nate Cohn just corrected his Clinton number for St. Thomas to 82% so Bernie gets one delegate. 6-1.
posted by chris24 at 8:19 PM on June 4, 2016


I'm waiting for Donald Trump to sign up for a Metafilter account and do a Scott Adams.

Thankfully, the $5 fee will probably keep him away.
posted by clawsoon at 8:32 PM on June 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


do a Scott Adams

I'm pretty new here - what does this mean? I know he's kind of an asshole (Scott Adams), but what does he have to do with MeFi?
posted by stolyarova at 8:35 PM on June 4, 2016


MeFi wiki to the rescue.
posted by peeedro at 8:37 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


There was a thread about Scott Adams, and a new user turned up to lecture us all about how Scott Adams was a god among men, and someone jokingly said "hi, Scott," and then it actually was Scott Adams, pretending to be a random person who was an authority on the awesomeness of Scott Adams. It was kind of glorious.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:39 PM on June 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


Whoever has the Donald Trump sockpuppet should hook it to a Markov dingus or that neural net that writes the recipes and post in the election threads at random intervals
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:44 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


It sort of sounds like a type of fart

"dude, did you just do a Scott Adams, sick"
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:45 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Scott Adams'd it!
posted by tonycpsu at 8:49 PM on June 4, 2016


Sanders is banking on a strategy where he's simultaneously the underdog who sweeps the remaining conventions and the beneficiary of corrupt machinations from the powers that be.

To be fair, "Ain't no rules says the dog can't play basketball" was some crooked rules-lawyering that gave the Timberwolves an unfair advantage, and an unfair victory.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:53 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Thank you, peeedro and ArbitraryAndCapricious! What a skeevy move. And, of course, just like Trump, he plays it off as a joke and says that anyone who didn't 'get it' wasn't smart enough, taking no responsibility for the con? Ugh.
posted by stolyarova at 8:56 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is there a word for this particular kind of emotionally abusive narcissism, as seen in Scott Adams, Nassim Taleb, and Donald Trump?
posted by stolyarova at 9:03 PM on June 4, 2016


And just to bring it around full circle, while Scott Adams insists he isn't actually supporting anyone for President, he's turned into a heck of a Trump Apologist lately, offering excuses for Trump's stances on deportation, banning Muslims ("keep in mind that Islam – as commonly practiced in Muslim countries around the world – is not compatible with the Constitution of the United States"), and committing war crimes.

In short, assholes attract assholes.
posted by zachlipton at 9:09 PM on June 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


Thankfully, the $5 fee will probably keep him away.
Or just the fact that we're not Twitter; we don't have a 140 character limit, we do have good moderation and responses are all in the same thread. A hostile environment for a Drumpf.

Also, best case scenario: Judge Curiel should recuse himself and hand over the case to a nice lilly-white Republican judge whose first actions are to move the trial date up to BEFORE the election, then clamp a gag order specifically on Drumpf (which he will immediately violate and get a nice Contempt of Court citation).

I'm beginning to suspect that his ultimate reason for running for President is that the Trump U. case and his current audit are sure to put him in jail unless he can put himself in a position where he can pre-emptively pardon himself (or at least he believes he can).

Dilbert is on my list of "comics to follow because it's funny once or twice a week" and last week he started getting into politics with a "both sides are bad" approach (Don't click this link if you don't want to suffer). Although he did ridicule global warming deniers in one strip... (But I'm sure he'll explain how Trump 'really doesn't mean that)

Is there a word for this particular kind of emotionally abusive narcissism...
Trump had mastered it decades ago, but in the early days of Dilbert, Dogbert was defined as just that kind of asshole... so Dogbertism? (A recent storyline of "Dilbert Classics" from 1993 showed Dogbert using hypnotism to take over the world... coincidence?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:16 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


"keep in mind that Islam – as commonly practiced in Muslim countries around the world – is not compatible with the Constitution of the United States"

Scott Adams, Certified Genius, scrunching up his face real tight as he tries to imagine what a constitution-supporting US-citizen Muslim could possibly look like, before eventually sighing and moving boldly forward with his blog post under the assumption that there aren't any US Muslims yet
posted by Greg Nog at 9:20 PM on June 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


Well, Scientology – as commonly practiced in the United States – is not compatible with the Constitution of the United States, and it's recognized a religion here... and wasn't that the reason the Mormon church 'self-deported' in the 1840s?
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:29 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


A friend of mine panic-shared to Facebook that recent bit of Adams clickbait about Trump winning in a landslide because Adams thinks there is such a thing as "alpha and beta" males in the real world. I tried to talk him out of ever taking Adams seriously and got nowhere - wish I remembered to check the Mefi Wiki for that recap at the time.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:29 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Bernie cannot defeat the Party now, inflicting as much damage as possible still makes it easier for the next person in Bernie's role in the next battle. (Kanye's been talking about 2020.) Prediction is difficult, but I see no reason the trend of subjects' increasing dissatisfaction with the ruling Parties will reverse in the coming decade or so.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:32 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


If Trump wins, Kanye is the most logical challenger in 2020.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:34 PM on June 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Whose face will be on the $3 bill ?
posted by y2karl at 9:57 PM on June 4, 2016


I went back to reread the ol' Scott Adams thread and...
The old hotness: Donald Trump surges to the head of the pack of Republican candidates for President

The new hotness: The Atlas Shrugged movie is released; Scott Adams surges to the head of the pack of Republican candidates for President
posted by lukemeister at 11:36 PM on April 15, 2011 [3 favorites +] [!]
uhhhhm
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:19 PM on June 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


So I had a disturbing thought while chopping kale at work today.

The Republicans have learned that they can just block anything with virtual impunity, and have logically (for them) extended that to SCOTUS nominations, which have never been blocked from even hearing before, AFAIK.

Don't Cabinet appointments have to go through a confirmation process? I'm under the impression that, out of legislative courtesy, a new President's appointees are rubber-stamped to ensure continuation of government.

What happens if they do to Cabinet appointments what they have done with SCOTUS? It's been clear that the Republicans have little truck with parliamentary traditions and courtesies. Why would this Congress allow hearings on any appointee of a Clinton administration? Poof, Congress prevents any Cabinet positions from being filled. And maybe they'll negotiate if [insert horrific legislation here] is passed. Augh someone tell me I'm being paranoid
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:25 PM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


If the just-elected head of the executive branch is prevented from naming her own set of top officials, as a whole, before she has even done anything...

Surely that?

Or else... I don't see how our system of government could be said to be at all functional at that point, particularly if the Supreme Court is still deadlocked, as appears likely.

But happily, I think the Democrats will probably take back the Senate and will have the option to destroy the gerrymander if necessary. And even if they are down one or two senators from the majority, hopefully at least a few Republican senators are still sort of committed to making things work. Susan Collins, for instance. Maybe John McCain.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:39 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


gerrymander --> fillibuster. Yikes.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:45 PM on June 4, 2016


Denying cabinet appointments doesn't really win anything for the Republicans, unlike delaying a Supreme Court nomination until after an election they think they might win. Yeah, you could handwave about obstructing Clinton, but that's not the sort of concrete win they'd need to justify that sort of nuclear bomb.
posted by ryanrs at 11:10 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Bernie cannot defeat the Party now, inflicting as much damage as possible still makes it easier for the next person in Bernie's role in the next battle.

No.

"Inflicting as much damage as possible" would essentially discredit the Left as viable members of the Democratic party who are interested in governance, as opposed to a pack of immature bomb throwers.

Instead of going "Oh, these people are screwing us over, let's give them more power", the response would be to minimize the ability of the Left to influence Democratic policy. Take a look at the Puppies vs the Hugos campaigns of you need an example. Acting like assholes and being destructive brings people together in opposition, but in support

Seriously, one would think the Left would have learned that lesson in 2000. But, I guess not.
posted by happyroach at 2:43 AM on June 5, 2016 [16 favorites]


In 2000 we learned that Centrist dems in Florida were willing to vote for Bush in greater numbers than the left voted for Nader. Maybe this party does need some more metaphorical bomb throwers.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:22 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Appreciate the responses. But I didn't make my point succinctly enough. My fault because I was in a hurry to head out last night.

It isn't a question of whether or not Bernie will win. He will not and I'm okay with that. The fact of the matter is that Clinton has not won yet. Forget "effectively" and forget all the "Bernie isn't behaving they way I want him to behave" stuff. Clinton is still 550 or so delegates shy of winning the nomination. We are all for the process, right? Take personalities out of it for a moment and just reflect on this: No Democrat has garnered enough support as of this date to be the nominee.

Clinton actually has to cross the finish line. And she will. At the convention and on the first ballot. Yet, until then, respect the process. Once she wins she will be the head of the Democratic party and it'll be incumbent upon all Democrats to work for a victory in the fall.

At the convention there'll be a little hullabaloo. And that's okay. Nothing wrong with some heated debate about issues and yes, the allocation of power among factions within the party. We've been doing it this way for a couple of centuries.

Here's my prediction. Coming out of the convention, Sanders will prove to be a forceful and good advocate in the fight to defeat Trump. He'll even say nice things about Clinton. The only alternative would be to go third party and that's just not happening.

If Bernie cannot defeat the Party now, inflicting as much damage as possible still makes it easier for the next person in Bernie's role in the next battle. (Kanye's been talking about 2020.)

Absolutely no. What happyroach says is spot on. It's about governing the best we can. (And who in their right mind would even consider Kanye West for president?)

These are troubled times. And they are going to continue to be troubled for at least the near future. I think this dust up in the Democratic party is actually a good thing. It's about time the coalition was re-calibrated a little and it's absolutely possible to be great on identity issues AND great on economic issues, too. Nothing mutually exclusive about that. One example: what's a terrific way to legally ensure equal pay across gender? Join a union. Don't have a union to join? Create one.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:27 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


If Bernie doesn't concede before the convention he isn't going to get a speaking spot. I would expect him to concede, though he has stuck around longer than I expected already. There isn't really a way to contest when your opponent is going to win on the first vote.

Cruz named a VP right before he dropped. Candidates do weird stuff in Hail Mary time. Hillary waited until after everybody voted to drop too while saying weird and offensive stuff like the assassination remark. She did not in fact have plans to overturn the will of the people to nominate the first African American even though at times it may have sounded like it.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:48 AM on June 5, 2016


If Bernie doesn't concede before the convention he isn't going to get a speaking spot. I would expect him to concede, though he has stuck around longer than I expected already. There isn't really a way to contest when your opponent is going to win on the first vote.

Why NOT? I don't see a downside to playing out the entire process as the process is designed. Either the DNC will get its shit together at the convention -- which is what it's for -- or they won't. It's their job to figure out how to gather together everyone, and if they can't figure out how to unite Centrists and Progressives, then that's their problem.
posted by mikelieman at 5:01 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean, I'm pretty old, so maybe I have an obsolete idea of what the Party Convention is actually for. It's when you cut the backroom deals -- not for delegate counts -- but for the voting blocs you need..
posted by mikelieman at 5:02 AM on June 5, 2016


can I have a The More You Know Moment and ask why calling Hillary Hills annoys people? Is it the "Shrillary" thing?
posted by angrycat at 5:04 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


can I have a The More You Know Moment and ask why calling Hillary Hills annoys people?

I mean, as a woman, I really dislike it when people choose a diminutive form of my name that I don't use as a nickname, and call me by that. It indicates disrespect.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:10 AM on June 5, 2016 [15 favorites]


uh--okay. I have a similar name with and L and ending with an IE sound so I've never paid it no never mind. I'll go back to HRC
posted by angrycat at 5:18 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maybe the point isn't the NOMINATION, but rather getting his agenda integrated with the platform so that his SUPPORTERS also endorse Clinton *without reservation*?
posted by mikelieman at 5:29 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


"How much does the DNC *really* want to win?"
posted by mikelieman at 5:30 AM on June 5, 2016


feckless fecal fear mongering What happens if they do to Cabinet appointments what they have done with SCOTUS? It's been clear that the Republicans have little truck with parliamentary traditions and courtesies.

They didn't entirely block them, but the Republicans did drag out and delay by ridiculous lengths Obama's various executive appointments. Some of it is happening now, thanks to the truly staggering amount of Republican intransigence, but from the time he was elected the Republicans did everything they could to keep him from actually filling all the various executive branch seats a President is supposed to.

So yes, I fully expect that if the Republicans keep the Senate they will simply block almost all of Clinton's appointments out of sheer spite. If (unlikely but increasingly possible) the Democrats retake the Senate I expect to see the Republicans expand their policy of filibustering everything, and work very hard to make those filibusters stick. And I confidently expect that, despite not using it to block bad Republican bills during the time of the Republican majority, the Senate Democrats will not scrap the filibuster. Why I don't know, maybe they don't want to do their jobs so they like the excuse that all Democratic bills take 60 votes to pass?
posted by sotonohito at 5:36 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Back to the shortening of Hillary's name briefly - I have the EXACT same name (minus one "l") and loathe having it shortened to "Hil" or "Hils". It is such an inelegant nickname - I don't think the name lends itself easily to shortening.
posted by hilaryjade at 5:46 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


maybe I have an obsolete idea of what the Party Convention is actually for. It's when you cut the backroom deals -- not for delegate counts -- but for the voting blocs you need.

Uh, I think I see where you're coming from. But no, to my understanding the convention is basically a glorified, stupidly expensive infomercial. There just aren't anymore the cohesive blocs of votes that can be "delivered" by various machines and whatnot. And what remnants of that system of politics do exist are usually going to fall in behind their traditional party (e.g. the unions will support the Democratic nominee regardless, and everyone knows it... so they don't really have leverage to make backroom threats).

I think the manuvering now happens in the year or so preceding the primaries and that's where candidates try to gage support, line up financial backers, and generally see what their chances are. When the dust settles on this interminable election, it is definitely worth thinking about how that "invisible primary" functions.

But for now the die is cast. Barack Obama will hand over a very heavy set of keys to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump next year. This isn't what we wanted, but it's not really a hard choice for progressives to make.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:46 AM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Sanders supporters who are honestly motivated by policy concerns will neither stay home, nor vote for Trump. The others, I'm still unclear as to how many there actually are, what they want, and whether they were just trolling anyway. Regardless, Senator Sanders should concede unequivocally, very soon after the primary voting is done on Tuesday. It is the right thing to do for the country and the right thing to do for the cause of social democracy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:57 AM on June 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


[A couple of comments deleted. As we've asked before, so very many times, just address issues without making personal judgements about other commenters. And as a general note to everyone: maybe you're just sort of hanging around in the thread and there isn't always some significant news at the moment or you're waiting around for the next big thing or whatever? Please resist the impulse to fill in the gaps by going after each other, goading other posters, pumping up the hyperbolic and/or accusatory language, looking for the most inflammatory stuff to post, etc. It's okay to not always be at internet election outrage defcon 1. ]
posted by taz (staff) at 6:03 AM on June 5, 2016 [15 favorites]


At this point, the Sanders argument really comes down to "If something happens to Hillary between now and September, the party should choose me as the replacement nominee." And there IS a non-zero chance something may happen.

But I don't think seven weeks of internet Bernie keyboard warriors appealing to superdelegates is the way to do that. The way to do that is suspending your campaign after Tuesday, supporting Hillary, and doing what you can to look like the proper team player.

Maybe he's on to something by figuring hanging around and being the party pooper is a viable stratagem. I don't see how that works, myself.
posted by dw at 7:00 AM on June 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think the other reason it bothers me to keep hanging on is its just such an egregious waste of money. Elections already cost absurdly so he's going to keep soliciting donations and spending money for what exactly? Hanging on at this point doesn't seem like it gets him more influence at the convention. So it's just a waste and it's easy for me to see it as a egotistical waste. :(
posted by R343L at 7:07 AM on June 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


BTW, latest poll of polls shows Hillary recovering vs Trump and Trump seemingly stuck at or below 40%. On the other side, Bernie's support has eroded to sub-50%, but Trump's ceiling there is 38-39%.

That little 1-2% difference has me baffled. It's within MoE, yes, but a poll of polls does diminish that. Is that the true #NeverHillary crowd there? Or is it the "I hate Hillary but Sanders I don't know enough about" crowd?
posted by dw at 7:10 AM on June 5, 2016


It's that both Trump and TrumpLite have been attacking HRC for months now, but comparatively few attacks have been focused on Sanders. The nomination bounce will take care of it.
posted by Dashy at 7:21 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Re: the convention, my understanding is that if BS has not conceded, he cannot give a speech, as it would then be a campaign speech. He can have either a speech or be a candidate, but not both. Like superdelegates, he wants it both ways, but that is not possible by the rules.
posted by Dashy at 7:24 AM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


I definitely look forward to months of "They wouldn't even let him speak!!!" from Bernie's keyboard warriors. *rolls eyes*
posted by tobascodagama at 7:30 AM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Clinton actually has to cross the finish line. And she will. At the convention and on the first ballot. Yet, until then, respect the process. Once she wins she will be the head of the Democratic party and it'll be incumbent upon all Democrats to work for a victory in the fall.

But that's the thing. People expedite processes when the conclusion is forgone all the time. The Senate for instance, everyday they use unanimous consent to expedite most mundane matters even though they technically require a vote.

A process like this is designed to reach some form of consensus. Once consensus has been reached processes often get expedited. In this case both the people and the institution are in agreement. Bernie being that guy that wants to stop the expedition of consensus because he's sore about losing isn't respecting the process. It just makes him a giant dick.
posted by Talez at 7:33 AM on June 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


So I guess McCain has endorsed the Spray-tanned Tantrum.

The Straight Talk express took a sharp turn years ago, but this is so #maverick I can't even. Just retire John, don't debase yourself further.
posted by dis_integration at 7:34 AM on June 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


So I guess McCain has endorsed the Spray-tanned Tantrum.

He's in a no-win situation. Endorse Trump and suffer at the hands of the rising tide of Hispanic voters. Don't endorse Trump and lose support of Arizona's rabid Republican base who think he's a RINO.

Either way, his chances at hanging on to his seat are fading rapidly.
posted by dw at 7:40 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


"If you’re young, white and privileged, you don’t expect to lose. When you do, it must be because you got cheated. Blacks know better."

The White Entitlement of Some Sanders Supporters
posted by chris24 at 7:42 AM on June 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


Clinton actually has to cross the finish line. And she will. At the convention and on the first ballot. Yet, until then, respect the process.

Except no one had issues with Obama being named the presumptive nominee in 2008 with superdelegates counting.

Or Kerry being named the presumptive nominee in 2004 using superdelegates.

Funny how it's different now that it's a woman.
posted by chris24 at 7:46 AM on June 5, 2016 [21 favorites]


Yes, candidates concede all the time once they no longer have a chance of winning legitimately. It's a completely normal part of the process. Bernie's special, though, for some reason.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:56 AM on June 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Candidates stay in well past when they lost frequently too. Like Hillary did in 2008. It's not asking for special treatment to ask for the same treatment Clinton and many other politicians get.

And yes, some Clinton supporters screamed very loudly about Obama being declared the winner.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:02 AM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


It seems like some of our reporters are learning how to deal with Trump:
TAPPER: If you are saying he cannot do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?

TRUMP: No, I don't think so at all.
And it only took 23 time to get a straight answer out of him.
posted by octothorpe at 8:06 AM on June 5, 2016


some Clinton supporters screamed very loudly about Obama being declared the winner.

Clinton didn't. She conceded a couple days after the last primary and gave an amazing speech uniting the party and advocating for Obama. She didn't take it to the convention. Oh and she was also tied in the popular vote and much much closer in delegates.
posted by chris24 at 8:07 AM on June 5, 2016 [18 favorites]


I feel like I see a lot of attempts to justify Sanders' behavior by saying "But Clinton did it in 2008!"

Here's the thing, though: it was shitty when Clinton (and a small subset of her supporters) did it in 2008. It is shitty when Sanders (and a small subset of his supporters) do it in 2016.

"She did it first" is a six-year-old's defense.
posted by dersins at 8:09 AM on June 5, 2016 [15 favorites]


I think the difference is that Clinton knew she was going to be offered something in the administration (I mean, come on), and that her supporters' positions were almost identical to those of the Obama folks. Sanders was a substantively different platform, and isn't going to be offered anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:10 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


If we're looking for the process to be respected, I want to see that start with Sanders. He needs to make sure his Berniegaters and Bernie Truthers understand that he's losing legitimately, that nothing's been stolen, that no one is "handing" Clinton the nomination she won by securing a greater number of votes. I've seen precious little respect for the process from this tantrum prone candidate, and at this point he appears to lack the level of contact with electoral reality that Ted Cruz demonstrated a few weeks back.
posted by EatTheWeak at 8:14 AM on June 5, 2016 [16 favorites]


Sanders was a substantively different platform, and isn't going to be offered anything.

Well, he might have been. Hell, he almost certainly would have been, had he managed to keep his shit together through the endgame.

But it's seeming less and less likely each time he pointlessly lashes out at the party he still desperately wants something from.
posted by dersins at 8:14 AM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


I agree they are both shitty, I've been calling for Sanders to drop for months now. What I disagree with is the shallow hypocrisy of saying it's all right for one or the other. I mean, calling out Sanders because he hasn't dropped earlier than Clinton and referencing a popular vote count win based on Obama not even being on the ballot in multiple states? Like, can we be serious here?
posted by Drinky Die at 8:15 AM on June 5, 2016


referencing a popular vote count win based on Obama not being on the ballot in multiple states?

I said tied, and that's an accurate reflection. I didn't say win because of the issues in Michigan and Florida.
posted by chris24 at 8:18 AM on June 5, 2016


I have no problem with Sanders staying in through Tuesday, even though it's very unlikely that he could win, there still is a possibility and big states like NJ and California deserve to have some say in the process. That said, he should follow her example from 2008 and drop out and endorse Clinton after the primaries are over.
posted by octothorpe at 8:20 AM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've been calling for Sanders to drop for months now.

Well, I mean, that's great, but that's not how democracy works. I agree that he should probably drop out next week, but there was no reason for him to drop out before.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:24 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


[My fellow Americans, your round-and-round on this topic of "when should a losing candidate drop out?" is starting to make me smash my face on the keyboard. No forward motion is to be had and I bet there are other things to discuss.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 8:26 AM on June 5, 2016 [19 favorites]


That Jake Tapper interview is part of a promising trend: The media have reached a turning point in covering Donald Trump. He may not survive it. Of course, this is an opinion columnist for the Washington Post (Trumpic Enemy #1).

I'm not sure Dumpster isn't handling this as well as he can... he may be feeling he's actually safer defending his racism than defending his big-time defrauding in the actual Trump U. case, which might actually give some of his already-supporters pause.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:26 AM on June 5, 2016


I said tied, and that's an accurate reflection.

Sorry, I misread.

This isn't horseshoes and hand grenades. She was in the same situation as Sanders around this time, the polling made it clear she could not win without the superdelegates. She had realistically lost months prior. She waited four days after the last primary to concede. If Bernie passes that point and still swears he is contesting it, then I will see a lot less hypocrisy in some of the really vicious condemnations.

I agree that he should probably drop out next week, but there was no reason for him to drop out before.


The reason was to unify the party to defeat Trump. Most years I would not see it as that big a deal, but the party would be in a lot stronger position to defeat Trump if the Democrats had unified before the Republican infighting ended first. Normally I would not care that much about Democratic strength, I want both parties to die, but this is not the year for Dems to be weak.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:28 AM on June 5, 2016


I honestly think he's more concerned about winning the case than being president. So disqualifying the judge or tainting the jury is worth it regardless of how the racism affects his campaign among non-Trumpers. Because the campaign was/is merely a way to prop up his finances.
posted by chris24 at 8:29 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Let me second the mod on this... Sanders' behavior will only become a factor if he stubbornly hangs on after the last primaries this week... and I'd give him 72 hours after the votes are in to swallow a lot of pride that he has built up during this campaign (this kind of national importance is new for him, and he's a political old dog trying to learn new tricks). If he does concede graciously this week, this entire argument is moot. If he doesn't, we'll have to re-examine the whole situation and the arguments up to now won't mean much anyway.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:33 AM on June 5, 2016 [17 favorites]


She was in the same situation as Sanders around this time, the polling made it clear she could not win without the superdelegates.

I agree. If you look through my posts in this and the other election threads, my issue with Bernie have been his threats to take it past the end of the primaries to the convention. And his switch from an issue-based campaign to one focused on tearing down HRC and the Democratic Party after he'd effective lost. I have no issue with him campaigning thru California and letting his supporters have their say.
posted by chris24 at 8:33 AM on June 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Changing the subject... have we ever talked about Trump (faintly?) praising the Chinese for putting down the Tiananmen Square protests? Then insisting that's not what he meant?

If it's about "strength," I have a hard time seeing us not going to war under Trump to "show the world" or something.
posted by dw at 8:35 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Argh, agreement is so boring.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:35 AM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


I want both parties to die...
...but if the Democrats do first, this is going to be a one-party nation ruled by bigots, billionaires and con-men for the next couple decades AT LEAST.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:36 AM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump (faintly?) praising the Chinese for putting down the Tiananmen Square protests?
Remember he has the endorsement of the North Korean news agency, a fully-owned subsidiary of its strongman ruler, and I do refer to him as "Kim Jung Il's favorite American" whenever I can.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:40 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


One party rule would be bad whichever side gets it. I don't really see that as the outcome though. Regardless, we need change from our two-party nation ruled by bigots, billionaires, and con-men.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:46 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Point taken, Eyebrows, onefellswoop. I think I have a few old Benefit of Doubt Extension forms laying around here - I can issue Senator Sanders one of these, good through next Friday. For all I know, he and Clinton are lining up their secret outro meeting at Diane Feinstein's house right now, like she did with Obama in 08. This could be over soon.

Is anyone else binge-watching House of Cards through all of this? I meant to get into it since it premiered, but only pulled the trigger this month because it's nice to think that someone has a plan, even if it's Frank Underwood.
posted by EatTheWeak at 8:53 AM on June 5, 2016


Well, a Democratic Party monopoly wouldn't take away health care from 30 million people, add a million more non-whites to the prison population and outlaw same-sex marriage AND abortion before we get another chance to vote.

And I'd prefer a "secret outro meeting" at Elizabeth Warren's house... never been a Feinstein fan; always considered her as "California has 1.5 Democratic senators".
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:57 AM on June 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


Word. And I'll bet Warren has a solid record collection.
posted by EatTheWeak at 8:58 AM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Differences in attitudes to the importance of the Supreme Court seem to be based on whether one's demographic group has had all the rights that there are all along, or has acquired them recently. People in the "all along" categories seem not to believe that their rights could ever be taken away. Others of us are a lot more twitchy about it, with good reason.
posted by puddledork at 9:01 AM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Speaking of Scott Adams, he's endorsing Hillary Clinton. The reason he's coming around to her? To prevent his own assassination.
posted by chaoticgood at 9:02 AM on June 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


i'm endorsing garfield
posted by pyramid termite at 9:14 AM on June 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump also thinks Muslim judges can't be trusted.

I hope every Republican running enjoys answering whether they agree with religious and ethnic tests for judges and elected officials.
posted by chris24 at 9:17 AM on June 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


i'm endorsing garfield

He won me over by promising to make every Monday a national holiday.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:18 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I hope every Republican running enjoys answering whether they agree with religious and ethnic tests for judges and elected officials.

I hope somebody asks them.
posted by mazola at 9:18 AM on June 5, 2016 [14 favorites]


Oh, and another little irony -- the same reason that Hillary didn't sweep the Virgin Islands delegates is the same reason Bernie didn't "win" in Wyoming: Local vote totals matter. So Bernie gets his delegate back he "lost" in Wyoming.

Also, Hillary's five delegate net in the Virgin Islands equals Bernie's five delegate net in Indiana and one more than his net in Michigan.
posted by dw at 9:18 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Haha. If he claims women can't be judges in cases involving him, I win the trifecta!
posted by notyou at 9:19 AM on June 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States.

LOL oh man who is this guy wow I need to start reading Dilbert.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:21 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I love that he thinks he's that important. "What's our next step in the war, Clinton Kill Squad?" We need to murk that dude who draws Dilbert!
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:23 AM on June 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


One of the narratives I perceive coming from the left is frustration that the democratic party has not and will not move left and will not respect the voices of progressives (from Sanders' camp or elsewhere) pushing them left. Is that true? From what I can tell, it has actually moved significantly leftward across the board. Supporting marriage equality, transgender equality, opposing police brutality, criticizing for profit prisons, increasing access to health care, increasing the minimum wage, increasing pathways to citizenship, increasing repayment and forgiveness options for student loans, etc.

I would not say that the party is good where it is and should stop moving. But it also does not feel true to me that efforts to push the party to the left have been vanquished and futile. While there is plenty of work left to do - on the contrary, it seems to be working! I'm so tired of the constant drumbeats of defeat and despair in the face of... progress. Okay it's not as fast or complete as we want, but even in some of the areas where I am most frustrated by mainstream democratic positions (like school reform, which is something I kind of wish Sanders' had taken on, as primary/secondary eduction can play such an important, cascading role across other areas), there are still meaningful ways in which the democratic party is better positioned than the republican (like not completely gutting unions, for instance.

I think it makes more sense to recognize the tremendous efforts *and* successes and successful impact that progressives have already had on the Democratic party and to focus on building on and expanding that momentum. I understand needing time and space to vent about the frustration and disappointments. But I think the narrative that the effort has been futile and that the party is irredeemably a 'them' and not an 'us' is kind of poisonous on many levels.
posted by Salamandrous at 9:25 AM on June 5, 2016 [11 favorites]


One nice thing about a long and contested primary season is that we sure don't talk that often about the US Virgin Islands or Guam or American Samoa or the Northern Marianas, think of all the cool places I could vacation without a passport! And now I know how many delegates they get!

(Plus I like how in Puerto Rico you're in what looks like a foreign country, but all the interstate/highway signs are regular federal standard, the dissonance of the exotic and the everyday tickles me pink, I bet there's even MORE of that in Guam. You get some of that vibe in places like Santa Fe or New Orleans that were well-settled by not-the-British before they joined the US, but it's at its awesomest in Puerto Rico.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:25 AM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Scott Adams' massively forced illogic is totally backwards... he's more afraid of the people accusing a candidate of Hitlerism than the Hitleresque candidate? This act of disloyalty to Trump is putting him seriously at risk from the Strorm-Trumpers. Well, no big loss.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:28 AM on June 5, 2016


Regardless, we need change from our two-party nation ruled by bigots, billionaires, and con-men.

Remind me again--is President Obama a bigot, a billionaire or a con man?
posted by dersins at 9:31 AM on June 5, 2016 [26 favorites]


I hope every Republican running enjoys answering whether they agree with religious and ethnic tests for judges and elected officials.

God, I really hope this starts up. Democrats all the way down the ticket need to be ready to attack, attack, attack on whether and how their opponents have supported Trump. The rest of the GOP needs to be forced to either disavow--which so far very few of them have had the courage to do--or own that shit.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:36 AM on June 5, 2016 [12 favorites]


Scott Adams' massively forced illogic is totally backwards

I think you are reading this incorrectly, which is why it seems backwards. Adams is not really endorsing Clinton. He is making a satiric passive-aggressive argument that he is being forced to declare support to Clinton because of threats of violence from Clinton supporters. It is all tongue in cheek garbage. He's a Trump supporter through and through.
posted by JackFlash at 9:37 AM on June 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


...and his Trump supporting friends aren't smart enough to get "satiric passive-aggressive arguments" so he is now on THE HIT LIST. Right after Jake Tapper for his crime of journalism (ironically, since Adams had Tapper 'guest artisting' his comic for a week after they 'hit it off' in an interview... and Dilbert's ugly characters have never been uglier)
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:42 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump on Face the Nation this morning. "I made a lot of money with Qaddafi."

And on CNN, "Until I got involved in this, most people didn't know we were defending Japan and Germany."
posted by chris24 at 9:45 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


"I was for something, but I wasn't for what we have right now."

If that doesn't sum up Trump, I don't know what does.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:50 AM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Salamandrous: One of the narratives I perceive coming from the left is frustration that the democratic party has not and will not move left and will not respect the voices of progressives (from Sanders' camp or elsewhere) pushing them left. Is that true?

When they get a higher margin of victory, Democratic representatives vote more to the left:

Why turnout matters, even in true-blue districts: Large margins of victory make politicians more responsive to progressive goals

So get out and vote, even if you're in a district where it "doesn't matter".
posted by clawsoon at 9:50 AM on June 5, 2016 [21 favorites]


"If you’re young, white and privileged, you don’t expect to lose. When you do, it must be because you got cheated."

This rings very true. "I voted (or thought about it). I even talked shit online with my phone while waiting in line at Starbucks. What do you want, blood?"
posted by bongo_x at 9:58 AM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


oneswellfoop: Trump had mastered it decades ago, but in the early days of Dilbert, Dogbert was defined as just that kind of asshole... so Dogbertism?

In a book linked from the Scott Adams thread (too lazy to dig it up, sorry!), the author points out that Dogbert - psychopathic, screw everybody so that I can get mine Dogbert - is both the real hero of the strip and a reflection of things Adams has said about his own approach to life.
posted by clawsoon at 9:59 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


And now it appears that Clinton will indeed get all 7 delegates from USVI, despite the confusion last night on whether the 15% viability requirement applied overall or by district. She also gets all 4 super-delegates.
posted by chris24 at 10:00 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Remind me again--is President Obama a bigot, a billionaire or a con man?

Until very recently, after he had been elected, he held the bigoted position that gay people should not be allowed to get married.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:05 AM on June 5, 2016


Until very recently, after he had been elected, he held the bigoted position that gay people should not be allowed to get married.

Until a few years ago most people did. People change, society changes.

I always find it weird that people think it's great if I, or their Uncle Dave, or whoever changes their mind on a subject, but if you're a public figure you own your initial positions for life.
posted by bongo_x at 10:13 AM on June 5, 2016 [28 favorites]


No no no it's that if you are a politician, you only ever change your mind when a new stance becomes fashionable, so you don't lose your next election [as a standing president in your second term].
posted by rorgy at 10:18 AM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Until a few years ago most people did. People change, society changes.

I always find it weird that people think it's great if I, or their Uncle Dave, or whoever changes their mind on a subject, but if you're a public figure you own your initial positions for life.


Becoming less bigoted doesn't mean that he wasn't bigoted when he got elected, though. Which seemed to be the point of that comment.
posted by bardophile at 10:19 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean, Bernie Sanders was against legalizing gay marriage at a federal level . "Civil unions are fine! Let the states decide!"

It's good when people evolve. Why do we condemn them?
posted by dersins at 10:21 AM on June 5, 2016 [15 favorites]


"Bigot" is just a really weird term to try to apply to Obama.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:21 AM on June 5, 2016 [11 favorites]


The same year Obama was elected, an initiative in California to legalize gay marriage LOST. So even this "very Liberal" state was majority-bigoted on that issue.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:23 AM on June 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


That's what you get for making a blanket "billionaires and bigots" classification for the presidents. Gotta cram em into the slots somehow!
posted by rorgy at 10:23 AM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


I mean, Bernie Sanders was against legalizing gay marriage at a federal level . "Civil unions are fine! Let the states decide!"

Yes, I would also describe that as bigotry. Opposing gay marriage is a bigoted thing to do.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:26 AM on June 5, 2016


Adams in six months: "I endorsed Clinton, but I voted for Trump. You may be too stupid to realize that these are completely separate things."
posted by clawsoon at 10:30 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


My only objections to Obama's supposed evolution was that he started by moving backwards, and that he advocated for state level BS. Before he ran for President he endorsed same sex marriage. Then when he was running for President he suddenly became more churchy and declared that same sex marriage was off the table.

Then in 2014 he he "evolved" back to the position he'd held before he ran for the Presidency and declared that same sex marriage was ok. Except in the same speech he also declared that it should be decided at the state level and that it was good for some states to deny gay people equal rights.

And Sanders' position was worse.

But we're past that now and thanks to the Supreme Court's decision that marriage was not a state issue, just like they did in Loving, we've got equal marriage rights nationwide now.
posted by sotonohito at 10:42 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


In retrospect, it's horrifying to think that had the Obergefell case come up this term, we wouldn't have marriage equality.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:48 AM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wouldn't it just have been 5-3 instead of 5-4, or are you thinking of something other than Scalia's absence?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:05 AM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I always find it weird that people think it's great if I, or their Uncle Dave, or whoever changes their mind on a subject, but if you're a public figure you own your initial positions for life.

A good example is conservatives calling Hillary a racist for having a close relationship with a one time klan member.

Never mind that Byrd did a complete 180 back in the early '80s, worked to rehabilitate himself on racial matters and didn't stop apologizing for his behavior until the day he died.
posted by Talez at 11:26 AM on June 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


Like I have said multiple times Bernie can stay in until the convention and continue to solicit donations from the reddit rubes, it isn't going to matter anyway.

As long as he doesn't go completely crazy and threaten a third party run as a Green there isn't anything he can do to impact Clinton anymore in a negative way.

What he is doing is abandoning any hope of coming out of this process with increased leverage regarding Democratic policy. That and he is basically smearing progressives by looking completely delusional. Progressives don't need to threaten the party they need to grow support and expand the party but the Sanders wing just seems to want to take their ball and go home.

Most progressives aren't like that and it feels like this extended temper tantrum is undermining progressive leadership
posted by vuron at 11:42 AM on June 5, 2016 [15 favorites]


It seems like some of our reporters are learning how to deal with Trump:

Being called out by the President on national TV (well, C-SPAN) at the Correspondents' Association dinner ("Jake Tapper left journalism to join CNN") might have been the best thing to happen to Jake Tapper. There are honest-to-god moments now where it feels like he's trying.
posted by zachlipton at 12:00 PM on June 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


This whole business with the American-born judge plucked my memory strings - does anyone else remember the I Am An American (SLYT) ad that came out after 9/11?

How far we've come.
posted by stolyarova at 12:05 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


> So I guess McCain has endorsed the Spray-tanned Tantrum.

These Republican Leaders Support Trump, Believe He Will Violate The Constitution And Incite Violence
posted by homunculus at 12:17 PM on June 5, 2016


Sanders' assertion that the convention is contested because the superdelegates don't officially cast their votes until the Democratic convention is like saying that the President isn't actually the president-elect until mid-December because that's when the electoral college meets to official cast their votes.

No.
posted by Justinian at 12:21 PM on June 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


There isn't really a way to contest when your opponent is going to win on the first vote.

Not even via the Rules Committee?
posted by corb at 12:32 PM on June 5, 2016


Is it me, or is it “bigotry” kind of a useless word? Nobody wants to be a bigot, and nobody accused of being a bigot re-evaluates their position in light of that knowledge - if anything, it seems more likely to make people double down because there isn’t any returning from that outgroup.

If we’re going to talk about how a president of the United States was a “bigot” because he was once “evolving” on gay marriage (something which people on both sides of the aisle have been glad to look at as a convenience position dog-whistling to liberals), we’re essentially tagging the vast majority of the country with the label of “bigot”. This is a position from which change becomes impossible, especially since we are all dragged kicking and screaming into the future one position at a time. No one is simply converted to a new viewpoint wholesale, given that a viewpoint is a bundle of ideas about a number of interrelated issues.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:34 PM on June 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


The fact of the matter is that Clinton has not won yet. Forget "effectively" and forget all the "Bernie isn't behaving they way I want him to behave" stuff. Clinton is still 550 or so delegates shy of winning the nomination.

This is not true. She has more than enough superdelegates declared for her to win. You need the artificial measure of "only elected/pledged delegates" to make this argument.
posted by msalt at 12:47 PM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I agree "bigotry" is not a particularly useful term in terms of convincing people to change their minds or move public opinion. But it's also important to recognize that the vast majority of the country has actually been bigoted (*-IST, whatever you want to call it) on a number of issues related to civil rights throughout our history. That's a part of our history and something we should own, not just because it's the right thing to acknowledge people we've wronged in the past, but because it helps remind us of the need to continue to do better by the people we're wronging right now.
posted by zachlipton at 12:52 PM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh, of course these are things that need to be owned. But if we’re going to lump “I think we should have civil unions, not marriage equality” in with “I think mass deportation is fine and dandy”, we’ve lost some ability to reasonably discuss impacts and consequences.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:59 PM on June 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


As of this moment in time, Hillary needs 247 more pledged delegates to clinch a majority. 2026 is the number everyone should be looking at, not 2383, for two reasons:

1. Every delegate over 2026 means Bernie has to win over an additional superdelegate over the 358 that would give him a majority of superdelegates. So, for example, if Hillary's current 275 delegate margin holds through the DC primary, Bernie would need 633 superdelegates to support him.

2. The superdelegates better have a damn good reason to overturn the majority will of the Democratic rank and file if they want to throw nominate Bernie over Hillary. Yes, the reason they exist is a failsafe in case, say, a megalomaniac paper billionaire seeks the nomination. But when they make a choice to overturn any popular majority, it will create a lot of anger and a lot of questions. They must be certain they can accept those consequences.
posted by dw at 1:03 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Every delegate over 2026 means Bernie has to win over an additional superdelegate over the 358 that would give him a majority of superdelegates.

That seems like a needlessly complicated. We look at 2383 because it is a straight majority of all available delegates. If you get to 2383 the other candidate cannot win, so it's the simplest metric. Got 2383 delegates of all types? Boom, you've won!
posted by Justinian at 1:06 PM on June 5, 2016


Apparently the religious right is beginning to send warnings that if you vote for Hillary your daughter is going to become a lesbian or something....

Voting for Clinton will condem your daughters to life as a lesbian

“And that’s also the reason why people would be wrong to vote for Hillary Clinton,” Swanson then abruptly shifted his rhetoric. “Because, if you vote for her, you’re effectively sentencing your daughters to become lesbians someday. That’s what Hillary Clinton is doing, her entire policy is focused on empowering women and shifting the balance of power in America from men to women. And if you think about it, lesbianism is the perfect way to do that. Well, other than the fact that she herself is straight. Or is she?”

Of course the same guy also condemns the Girl Scouts as promoting lesbians so YMMV.

So to the left Clinton is basically a warmongering bankster and to the right she's apparently leading a lesbian cult. I can't keep my conspiracy theories straight!
posted by vuron at 1:10 PM on June 5, 2016 [14 favorites]


Apparently the religious right is beginning to send warnings that if you vote for Hillary your daughter is going to become a lesbian or something....

Please note this is the same Kevin Swanson that said gays should be executed by the state and that if his child got gay married he'd be out the front of the church rolling around in manure in mourning.

Saying voting for Hillary turns you into a lesbian is positively mild coming from him.
posted by Talez at 1:11 PM on June 5, 2016


That seems like a needlessly complicated.

It's really not. What I'm saying is Bernie needs a supermajority of superdelegates to win. So he's going to have to convince well over 600 of them to overturn a 3 million vote majority.
posted by dw at 1:12 PM on June 5, 2016


vuron: So to the left Clinton is basically a warmongering bankster and to the right she's apparently leading a lesbian cult. I can't keep my conspiracy theories straight!

They could both be right; there's no necessary contradiction here. Clinton: Warmongering lesbian bankster for President, 2016. Vote for pure evil or pure awesomeness, depending on which way you lean.
posted by clawsoon at 1:16 PM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Please note this is the same Kevin Swanson that said gays should be executed by the state and that if his child got gay married he'd be out the front of the church rolling around in manure in mourning.

Swanson was a Cruz backer, and having occasionally tuned in to his broadcasts for some hate-listening I can’t see him going for Donald Trump (beyond perhaps as an exemplar of the idea of male dominance in relationships). He’s a particular flavor of Christian madness.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:20 PM on June 5, 2016


One of the narratives I perceive coming from the left is frustration that the democratic party has not and will not move left and will not respect the voices of progressives (from Sanders' camp or elsewhere) pushing them left. Is that true? From what I can tell, it has actually moved significantly leftward across the board. Supporting marriage equality, transgender equality, opposing police brutality, criticizing for profit prisons, increasing access to health care, increasing the minimum wage, increasing pathways to citizenship, increasing repayment and forgiveness options for student loans, etc.

That's only the case if you think the Left is actually about things such as "Supporting marriage equality, transgender equality, opposing police brutality, criticizing for profit prisons and increasing pathways to citizenship," I think it's more and more the case that the Left gives at most lip service to issues of social equality, while actually dismissing their importance in favor of the economic issues the Left cares about.

I think it makes more and more sense to regard the Left as no longer a movement, but as yet another an interest group (albiet one that makes claims its issues are universal, and so it still demands to be in charge). After the number of times I've seen Leftists come into feminist or PoC conversations, saying that fighting sexism and racism aren't as important as promoting the economic reform, I have to say that as a feminist, my interests don't necessarily align with the Left. I mean, if they want to help, that's great- but we aren't all one big happy family, and we aren't going to be lead by, or subsumed into the Left.
posted by happyroach at 1:29 PM on June 5, 2016 [11 favorites]


There are plenty of progressives that have learned at least some elements of intersectionality it's just that currently there is a lot of far left people that seem to want to boil everything down to "it's all about economics" and who tend to diminish the challenges other individuals might experience that not exclusively related to class and economic issues.

Of course this tends to result in a crazy amount of whitesplaining and mansplaining by some otherwise well meaning progressive voices .
posted by vuron at 1:36 PM on June 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Oh, of course these are things that need to be owned. But if we’re going to lump “I think we should have civil unions, not marriage equality” in with “I think mass deportation is fine and dandy”, we’ve lost some ability to reasonably discuss impacts and consequences.

Or maybe differences of degree exist such that one position can be more bigoted than another yet both can still be bigoted. The fact that most of the country participated in that bigotry until very recently doesn't change that fact.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:47 PM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


So I guess McCain has endorsed the Spray-tanned Tantrum.

Being a Republucan sure is a shitty, undignified business these days.

Good.
posted by Artw at 1:49 PM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Being a Republucan politics sure is a shitty, undignified business these days.

ftfy.
posted by multics at 2:02 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


There's that good old false equivalence again.
posted by peacheater at 2:06 PM on June 5, 2016 [19 favorites]


http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sanders-greek-theatre-20160604-snap-story.html

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign on Saturday accused a Los Angeles city councilman who backs Hillary Clinton of obstructing his effort to stage a weekend campaign event at the city-owned Greek Theatre in the Hollywood Hills.

Sanders’ campaign sent an announcement to supporters saying its plan for a get-out-the-vote concert at the Greek had been scrapped and relocated to the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Olympic Plaza in South Los Angeles. In that message, the campaign also suggested that favoritism was being shown to the presidential campaign of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has her own event planned at the Greek on Monday.

...Sanders’ campaign did not have a ticketing system or a plan for addressing traffic congestion, which is required of every group that holds a rally or concert at the Greek...
...“The Sanders campaign is politicizing something that is solely a public safety issue"...
“Never once were they asked to cancel the event.”...

...Becky Colwell, the Greek’s general manager, said the Clinton campaign submitted its application a month in advance. The Sanders campaign asked to use the theater on Thursday.

posted by bongo_x at 2:11 PM on June 5, 2016 [27 favorites]


Once again, the system is rigged! Rigged I tell you! I mean, what kind of concert venue doesn't let you hold a massive event on a couple day's notice without having any kind of plans for tickets or managing crowds?
posted by zachlipton at 2:15 PM on June 5, 2016 [18 favorites]


ftfy

It was fine how it was, cheers.
posted by Artw at 2:16 PM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Coliseum is a better location anyway. The Greek is the middle of a neighborhood essentially. The Coliseum is right by USC so easier access for some of his college supporters.

And to address the above, it's not "false equivalence" to call both parties shitty and undignified. To paraphrase tonycpsu above, two things can both be bad but that doesn't mean one isn't worse than the other.
posted by downtohisturtles at 2:17 PM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


You can get way more people into the Coliseum than the Greek, I don't even get that. Certainly the Greek has more cachet and is in a better neighborhood, but otherwise it seems like a preferable place to be unless you aren't expecting a big crowd.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:19 PM on June 5, 2016


And I'll note that Sanders is switching from a 6,000 seat venue to a 93,000 seat stadium that he somehow managed to book at the last minute despite such things normally requiring a great deal of advance planning, so it's not as though the "silenced all my life" pitch works here either.
posted by zachlipton at 2:19 PM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well, keep in mind, big stadiums look bad in photos when they are nowhere near capacity.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:21 PM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sanders’ campaign did not have a ticketing system or a plan for addressing traffic congestion, which is required of every group ... the Clinton campaign submitted its application a month in advance. The Sanders campaign asked to use the theater on Thursday. ... suggested that favoritism was being shown

If this isn't the perfect microcosm of the campaign, I don't know what is.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:23 PM on June 5, 2016 [25 favorites]


The Republican Party is an utter racist clownshow right now and nobody associated with it is able to claim any degree of dignity or gravitas, as demonstrated by an 80 year old POW having to lick an orange clowns boots to keep his job.

The democrats, on the other hand, haven't quite finished their primary process.
posted by Artw at 2:26 PM on June 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


Early results from Puerto Rico, but it is possible that Clinton could go over the top in pledged and superdelegates even before the Tuesday primaries.
posted by JackFlash at 2:34 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't think that's possible, she'll be a little shy even with a massive win in PR.
posted by Justinian at 2:41 PM on June 5, 2016


I am just utterly fascinated with the fact that McCain didn't give Trump the double-deuce and retire with dignity and a bit of legacy. It was right there, John! You could've been a hero again!
posted by angrycat at 2:58 PM on June 5, 2016 [26 favorites]


At some point you just have to figure he craves this shit.
posted by Artw at 3:00 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think that ship sailed after he picked Sarah Palin.
posted by zachlipton at 3:04 PM on June 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


Donald Trump on Hillary Clinton, March 2012:
Hillary Clinton, I think, is a terrific woman. I mean I'm a little biased because I've known her for years. I live in New York, she lives in New York, I've known her and her husband for years and I really like them both a lot. And I think she really works hard, and again, she's given an agenda, that's not all of her, but I think she really works hard, she does a good job. And I like her.
...
I just like her. I like her and I like her husband...He's a really good guy and she's a really good person and woman.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:08 PM on June 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


Hillary Clinton, I think, is a terrific woman. I mean I'm a little biased because I've known her for years. I live in New York, she lives in New York, I've known her and her husband for years and I really like them both a lot. And I think she really works hard, and again, she's given an agenda, that's not all of her, but I think she really works hard, she does a good job. And I like her.
...
I just like her. I like her and I like her husband...He's a really good guy and she's a really good person and woman.
She needs to run that clip on every ad break on every station on every battleground state.
posted by Talez at 3:19 PM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah? I was thinking that's a soundbite both campaigns will probably run away from at top speed.
posted by EatTheWeak at 3:31 PM on June 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


Yeah, that works best as a Sanders ad.
posted by clawsoon at 3:34 PM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump's (previous) endorsement is definitely not a selling point for a lot of people.
posted by Superplin at 3:36 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


It can be used to illustrate that he's an opportunistic flip flopper.
posted by vuron at 3:38 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hillary can't use it but liberal Super PACs acting like conservative Super PACs can use it.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 3:40 PM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


One of the guys on CNN is making an interesting and funny (and true) point. Given how well Clinton is doing in Puerto Rico one of the difficulties they are going to have between now and Tuesday is that they are telling superdelegates not to commit to Clinton until after Tuesday. Because they could accidentally put Clinton over the top and ruin their plans for a Shock and Awe campaign on Tuesday. So the Clinton camp are actually calling up supers and telling them to make sure to stress they remain uncommitted if they are called by the AP or other delegate counting media organizations.

That's how unrealistic Sanders chances are; Clinton is actually having more trouble preventing too many superdelegates from endorsing her than not enough superdelegates.
posted by Justinian at 3:48 PM on June 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


It can be used to illustrate that he's an opportunistic flip flopper.

Strangely enough, that is only relevant for the Democratic candidate.
posted by sour cream at 3:51 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Josh Marshall is overstating it just a bit -- Trump’s argument (such as it is), is that Curiel should disqualify himself from the Trump University case in particular because Curiel’s identity as a Mexican-American (such as it is), will cloud his judgement because Trump has advocated racist policies. Presumably he would challenge a Muslim judge on similar grounds. And also probably a woman. It's still a terrible argument, but it is not the same as arguing that Curiel’s heritage disqualifies him from office as such.

Eric Brader at CNN: “Trump: Muslim judge could be biased, too”
posted by Going To Maine at 4:00 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


hmm, donald, could a white judge be biased, too?
posted by pyramid termite at 4:05 PM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


It sounds to me like Clinton has a block of 50ish more superdelegates who are waiting for word from her campaign to publicly announce their support. It seems likely that word will come when New Jersey is called for Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 4:07 PM on June 5, 2016


So if you're racist enough, you basically can't be prosecuted? Even if you're left with White judges, you could just go around insulting them individually; that wouldn't be a problem for Trump.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:08 PM on June 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


ONLY TRUMP MAY JUDGE TRUMP.
posted by Artw at 4:09 PM on June 5, 2016 [12 favorites]


So, his sister.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:12 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think Eugene Volokh made that point pretty well:
First, a judge’s race, ethnicity, sex and the like aren’t grounds for recusal, even if the case directly involves questions that relate to one of those factors. Neither black nor white judges, for instance, have to recuse themselves from cases that involve alleged race discrimination by whites against blacks (or blacks against whites). Hispanic judges don’t have to recuse themselves from immigration cases that involve Hispanics or from cases that involve constitutional law, administrative law or immigration law questions that especially bear on Hispanic immigrants.
He goes on to point out that requiring judges to recuse themselves if litigants do things to insult or offend them would lead to manipulation of judicial assignments.

So yes, Trump really is arguing that Judge Curiel can't do his job, because his job involves being a fair judge no matter what his race or ethnicity. We don't expect judges to recuse themselves in situations where their potential bias has far more bearing on the case than this one. To say that Judge Curiel can't hear this case is to say that he can't hear any case where someone involved was either of Mexican heritage or said negative things about people of Mexican heritage.

Anyway, this stuff literally goes back to the Old Testament. There's apparently a bit of a translation question about what Exodus 22:27 means, but some translate it as "You shall not revile judges," or more catchily as "Heap no abuse upon judges." And I'm not saying that we should be literally following everything in Exodus, but simply that not abusing judges, which is what Trump is doing when he attacks their heritage instead of their legal conclusions, is a cultural norm that goes back thousands of years.
posted by zachlipton at 4:23 PM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Are Trump and his lawyers actually arguing for a new judge within the bounds of the legal system? Or are his lawyers going about business as usual while Trump spouts off to the press? Because I can't imagine any court seeing this as a legitimate reason for Curiel to recuse himself. I doubt Trump's lawyers do either (considering the amount he probably pays them I would assume they know the law). But Trump is going to say whatever his brain vomits up for breakfast regardless of the reality of the case.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:34 PM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


They have not filed a motion for the judge to recuse himself, no. It's just Trump spouting racist Trumpian trash.
posted by Justinian at 4:36 PM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


This article in the Atlantic has some interesting history of lawyers asking judges to recuse themselves because of their race and being denied every time.
posted by peeedro at 4:37 PM on June 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


I guess the vote counters in Puerto Rico are a casualty of the budget cuts there 'cause this is glacial. 3% in after several hours.
posted by Justinian at 5:04 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sounds like the Clinton campaign will be a few dozen Superdelegates short of the nomination and her campaign is actively reaching out to superdelegates to hold off on pledging support until after NJ on the 7th.

It's going to be fucking amazing that 8 years to the day after she conceded to Obama she's going to be the nominee.

There is even indications Obama will be headed to NY on the 7th because after she reaches the threshold he can finally endorse her formally. I have to say that after 2008 and 2012 the idea that Obama is going back out on the campaign trail gets my heart going a little bit. I hadn't realized I kinda missed candidate Obama but I think he'll be a stellar campaigner for Hillary.

I also love that it's clear Hillary learned from the Gore campaign and has decided to firmly campaign as a continuation of Obama's legacy. And it's somehow shocking that Clinton has crazy support among African American voters.
posted by vuron at 5:16 PM on June 5, 2016 [21 favorites]


I can't believe NJ will be the state to put Hillary over the top! This is so exciting! I cannot wait to vote on Tuesday!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:50 PM on June 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Can't wait till it's cool to be excited about the first ever female general election nominee.
posted by zutalors! at 6:00 PM on June 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


But Trump is going to say whatever his brain vomits up for breakfast regardless of the reality of the case.

I think he's actually got a strategy here; from reading this article it became clear to me that Judge Curiel is bound by ethics not to respond to Trump's attacks in any way.

So Trump gets to be the swaggering bully, impugning Curiel who cannot act to defend himself. Trump is baiting him to respond - which would mean Trump gets what he wants in terms of Curiel being recused from the case, while laying out red meat for his base - because Trump can point to any decision he doesn't like as proof of his theory. Trump wins no matter what.

Trump is a lot of things, but when it comes to playing dirty hardball in the gutter, the short fingered vulgarian should not be underestimated.
posted by nubs at 6:00 PM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]




Another win for Bill Kristol!
posted by nubs at 6:09 PM on June 5, 2016 [18 favorites]


David French says he will not run for president.

I for one am shocked, shocked!
posted by Talez at 6:10 PM on June 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Another win for Bill Kristol!

Once again, Kristol proves himself to be an inverted oracle. Just take the opposite of what he says, and you can be sure that it will happen.
posted by dis_integration at 6:19 PM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yes, but how does he do it? It's such an amazing streak! You'd think he'd slip and be right once in a while. When will he go Constanza on us?
posted by nubs at 6:27 PM on June 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


That David French article makes me sick. I'm sure he's sincere, but that mental picture of Clinton is just so different from my own...
posted by Going To Maine at 6:32 PM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


“Japan and the Next US President: Thinking the Unthinkable,” Nakayama Toshihiro, Nippon.com, 06 June 2016
posted by ob1quixote at 6:54 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


So I leave for a couple hours and PR is sitting at 25% in. Heckuva job.
posted by Justinian at 6:56 PM on June 5, 2016


ONLY TRUMP MAY JUDGE TRUMP.

You jest, but it's increasingly clear that Trump believes himself literally above the law; that he himself is the fount of justice and even of truth.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:03 PM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


So I leave for a couple hours and PR is sitting at 25% in. Heckuva job.

CNN has called it for Clinton, though. They have the delegate split at 31/14 right now (with 60 total).
posted by multics at 7:04 PM on June 5, 2016


I'm sure he's sincere, but

I've been trying to wrap my head around when exactly 'sincere' became a positive thing when talking about odious beliefs. Like, for me, the apparent sincerity of someone espousing misogynist/transphobic/homophobic/racist beliefs is kinda totally unimportant. Some assbag may sincerely believe that I'm a sick deviant and unnatural and whatever other homophobic stupid shit. The depth of that sincerity isn't exactly a desirable thing, here.

Anyway it's just a thing I've been seeing a lot of lately, as some sort of apologia for awful people. In effect, it's like "boys will be boys" excusing horrific behaviour. I dunno. It's just weird and it's been bugging me, nothing specific to you, just happened to be the most recent time I saw it.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:32 PM on June 5, 2016 [20 favorites]


So I leave for a couple hours and PR is sitting at 25% in. Heckuva job.

You might give them a break. There are actually three different primaries going on today -- two local and the Presidential primary. The Presidential is actually the least important and traditionally has the lowest turnout because Puerto Rico doesn't get to vote in the Presidential election. The local elections have greater importance to the citizens of Puerto Rico. The three primaries are run by different organizations and in some cases have different polling locations. The election officials are simply overwhelmed.
posted by JackFlash at 7:45 PM on June 5, 2016


So I leave for a couple hours and PR is sitting at 25% in. Heckuva job.

If you want them to count it all, you need to send them money.
posted by dw at 7:46 PM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


In effect, it's like "boys will be boys" excusing horrific behaviour.

No, I think the sincerity thing is just that there is more than one level of awful.

If someone believes really stupid and harmful things and acts on them because they truly don't know any better, that's bad enough. It's not apology, but at some level you could say the person is doing the best they can, even if it's terrible. I think of it like how we don't, in theory, prosecute the mentally deficient for some crimes. Doesn't mean the crimes are OK. They may also someday learn and change.

But a large portion of the Right at this time doesn't even seem to believe the things they're saying, they know better, they're spreading hate for profit. That's a whole different special level of bad person that should be recognized.
posted by bongo_x at 7:52 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I’ve been trying to wrap my head around when exactly 'sincere' became a positive thing when talking about odious beliefs. Like, for me, the apparent sincerity of someone espousing misogynist/transphobic/homophobic/racist beliefs is kinda totally unimportant.

Someone’s sincere belief that a class of people are somehow unclean/criminal/what-have-you is one thing; French is voicing beliefs about one individual -Clinton- and how she is the nadir of a democratic candidate. It’s very easy for me to understand how exposure to a number of exemplars of a class could lead to a biased opinion about the whole; heck, that’s the sort of everyday stereotyping that most people happily engage in. Hatred of a particular person seems very different to me.

I’ve remained intrigued by the special hatred reserved for Clinton throughout the campaign, as well as how it has been constructed. Coming face to face with it is jarring, but invigorating. In his complaint, after all, French beefs about the Clinton foundation in ways similar to how I’ve seen mefites beef about it. While sexism is surely shot through many of the complaints about her (as is standard politics - Clinton, Obama, and Kerry were all painted as extreme leftists, though the combination of Sanders’s leftishness and Trump’s weirdness might make things play a bit differently for her this year), the portrait of Clinton as villainess has been worked out carefully over such a long period.

I’m not trying to give French credit for his sincerity. It doesn’t validate his views. But I’m a bit surprised that he can’t just look at her and see yet-another-blugh-Democratic-politician. Instead, she’s regarded as on a par with Trump for potential destructiveness, and he’s sincere in this portrayal.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:05 PM on June 5, 2016


her entire policy is focused on empowering women and shifting the balance of power in America from men to women
This quote is an open admission that Men Rule Everything... in other words, not a Mens Rights Advocate but a Mens Rules Advocate (which, if MRAs were honest, would be the official title). Having lived my life as a white male in America, I totally support stripping all the power from people like me, especially Donald Trump, and, yes, including Bernie Sanders and Bill Clinton.

it's increasingly clear that Trump believes himself literally above the law; that he himself is the fount of justice and even of truth.
..and his running for President is to make that a reality; first, to avoid prosecution over Trump Fraudiversary and whatever crimes pop up in his perpetual tax audits, and second (and I've said this before multiple times) to make himself the Richest Man in America (a goal he has failed at semi-miserably) and to persecute everybody he doesn't like, including Mexicans, Muslims, the Press and any other billionaires standing in his way of the prior goal (with obvious exceptions for banksters who've lent him money). It's not even worthwhile attacking the man on his "policies", it's ALL ABOUT HIM more than any Presidential Candidate in history and his only supporters are sycophants who want to ride on his coattails; which is why the GOP falling in line behind him is no surprise. And honestly, neither should the 40+% of American voters supporting him; all many of us want is somebody to tell us what to do and then overpay us for it - especially us White Males who are "outraged" that Others are getting Something for Nothing... I don't even call it racism or sexism, it's just naked greed that drives the Mens Rules Advocates who want everything... and Donald Trump was their poster boy long before he declared himself a candidate.

/end rant
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:22 PM on June 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


pyramid termite: "hmm, donald, could a white judge be biased, too?"

Hmmm? No, no - white Christian males are the default for human beings. That's what's NORMAL. Everybody else is some kind of weirdo.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:53 PM on June 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Chrysostom, that's why it would be awesome to see a white Christian male judge be the one to sentence the Trumpster to Federal Prison for tax fraud.

Re: John McCain... this isn't the first time he sold out to a dishonest billionaire; in fact, The Keating Five (of whom he was the only Republican) was the first time I ever heard of him. If Nixon's Southern Strategy was to make the GOP the party of racists, then The McCain Strategy has been to make the GOP the party of dishonest billionaires. I'm kinda surprised he didn't go pro-Trump earlier.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:12 PM on June 5, 2016


> David French says he will not run for president.

Remember the question posed by the thread? You have to scroll way (way way) back to get it, but here's how we started:

"Who Is David French and Is He Running for President?"

I think we should wrap this thread up, put a bow on it, and leave it as another monument to Bill Kristol. New thread?
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:17 PM on June 5, 2016


We've got nothing new yet. I'd save a new thread for Tuesday's results.
posted by zachlipton at 10:19 PM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Or just for Tuesday's pre-results action... there's sure to be some fresh headlines while the NJ and CA polls are still open.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:24 PM on June 5, 2016


We've got nothing new yet. I'd save a new thread for Tuesday's results.

Then let's all take a break and stroll the parks skipping merrily among the fragrant gardens.

Paddling free in little boats through the welcoming streams.

Dancing lightly in the warm meadows.

Anything but more arguing...
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:27 PM on June 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Tuesday will be the first time in American history that a woman becomes the presumptive nominee of a major political party. That deserves a new thread.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:27 PM on June 5, 2016 [18 favorites]


This is a fun read.
After Judge Curiel, What Will Endorsing Donald Trump do To GOP Candidates? By Rick Wilson -- a national Republican political strategist and media consultant.

Oh, you believed he was expanding the electorate? Bringing in millions of new voters? They’re not new; they’re just general election GOP voters who came out for him in the primary. Not you. Him. You perhaps overlooked that he’s also shedding millions of voters from the GOP’s coalition. If you’re in a swing state or district, tell me how you win back the Republican women and professionals who are fleeing Trump in droves? Tell me how you win in Florida or Nevada or Colorado as Hispanic support approached single digits?

He’s not going to change. He’s not going to stop being a shallow blowhard and non-stop-Malaprop. There is no better Trump. He’s not going to become more Presidential or more mindful. Trump doesn’t give a damn about your election. You’re not part of a unified Republican ticket; you’re collateral damage in Trump Rampage Raw WWE 2016. Every day, Donald Trump hands the Democrats another sword with which to cut off your political heads. Every day, Trump adds to their catalog of opposition research and endlessly catchy video bits. He’s all yours, and there are few paths to escape the blast radius.


As is this one, by the same author.
With God As My Witness, I Will Never Vote For Donald Trump.
posted by dougzilla at 11:01 PM on June 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


With God As My Witness, I Will Never Vote For Donald Trump

corb, is that you?
posted by stolyarova at 11:30 PM on June 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


David French: "After days of prayer, reflection, and serious study of the possibilities, I am not going to run as an independent candidate for president of the United States.

That is a blatant lie. He never had a prayer.
posted by msalt at 1:11 AM on June 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


With God As My Witness, I Will Never Vote For Donald Trump.

The article starts out decently enough, but then this:

I will never vote for Donald Trump because he’s a pro-gun control, pro-single-payer health care, pro-eminent domain, pro-abortion, and pro-statism liberal who will immediately revert to form when he’s finished selling his fauxservatism to people he patently views as rubes.

This is such a blatant misunderstanding that I just cannot wrap my head around it.
Donald Trump is no "pro-gun control" or "pro-abortion" or pro anything, just like he is not "anti-gun control" or "anti-abortion" or anti-anything.
He is devoid of any deeper convictions. He couldn't care less about unborn fetuses or the right of women to abort them. He doesn't care deeply about the right to bear arms or the thousands of people that die of it every year. He is "pro-emiment domain" as long as it helps him to build one of his casinos, but not one second longer and certainly not out of some deeply held principle. The only agenda he has is DONALD TRUMP. He will take up any position as long as he sees an advantage in doing so.

So, saying that you won't vote for him because he is pro-this and anti-that is totally naive. Don't vote for him because he's a liar, fine. Don't vote for him because he says despicable things and has shown himself to be unfit to be president. Don't vote for him because he is a thin-skinned short-fingered vulgarian. But saying that you won't vot for him because of his convictions is acknowledging that he has any convictions at all, which he doesn't.

Now, I'm sure that someone will cynically point out that not having any convictions is something that all politicians have in common, but I guess I haven't abandoned all hope yet. Not all politicians are entirely devoid of principles. Not all of them are nothing but self-serving psychopaths. Not all sides are equal this time.
posted by sour cream at 1:47 AM on June 6, 2016 [30 favorites]


Bernie Sanders' Campaign is Split Over Whether to Fight On Past Tuesday

It's a tough decision, but I think I know the right answer. Maybe I should give them a call?
posted by mmoncur at 2:57 AM on June 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


Bill Kristol must have like, zero capacity for self reflection
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:03 AM on June 6, 2016


feckless fecal fear mongering: I've been trying to wrap my head around when exactly 'sincere' became a positive thing when talking about odious beliefs. Like, for me, the apparent sincerity of someone espousing misogynist/transphobic/homophobic/racist beliefs is kinda totally unimportant. Some assbag may sincerely believe that I'm a sick deviant and unnatural and whatever other homophobic stupid shit. The depth of that sincerity isn't exactly a desirable thing, here.

I finally, earlier this year, came around to reading Harry Frankfurter's On Bullshit, which served as the inspiration for one of my favorite essays ever. If you've read On Smarm first, it covers about 70% of the ground that On Bullshit does, albeit in a slightly more roundabout way. Where the two diverge, however, and where On Bullshit delivered a healthy dose of brain-exploding goodness, was in the essay's conclusion:
Why is there so much bullshit? Of course it is impossible to be sure that there is relatively more of it nowadays than at other times. There is more communication of all kinds in our time than ever before, but the proportion that is bullshit may not have increased. Without assuming that the incidence of bullshit is actually greater now, I will mention a few considerations that help to account for the fact that it is currently so great.

Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic are more excessive than his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. This discrepancy is common in public life, where people are frequently impelled—whether by their own propensities or by the demands of others—to speak extensively about matters of which they are to some degree ignorant. Closely related instances arise from the widespread conviction that it is the responsibility of a citizen in a democracy to have opinions about everything, or at least everything that pertains to the conduct of his country's affairs. The lack of any significant connection between a person's opinions and his apprehension of reality will be even more severe, needless to say, for someone who believes it his responsibility, as a conscientious moral agent, to evaluate events and conditions in all parts of the world.

The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These "anti-realist" doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity.􏰘􏰉 Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.

But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial—notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.
That conclusion was one of those "holy-shit" wham lines that I suddenly couldn't stop seeing in goddamn everything. I know entire people for whom this is their modus operandi. And, of course, the capacity of a person to take offense to your questioning their beliefs is often directly proportional to the bullshittiness of what they've decided arbitrarily to be true.

Which doesn't make me any less empathetic towards those people—but it gives me a definitive line in the sand, a place where I can comfortably start saying "You've gone too far, and now what you're saying is ridiculous." It gets muddier when those people have "sources" they can cite, and therefore isn't a panacea, but it sure as shit helps clean a lot of nonsense out of everyday life (especially where politics are concerned).
posted by rorgy at 5:04 AM on June 6, 2016 [18 favorites]


Hearkening back to David French, he is an interesting character and although Kristol is an idiot, I'm sure French has an agenda here too. He does like to bloviate on right wing causes and made sure there were lots pictures of him taken in Iraq with a gun while he served as a legal advisor for eleven months. He'll be back, running for something. He's got the right wing self promotion machine in gear, can't wait to see where he pops up next.
posted by readery at 5:08 AM on June 6, 2016


Remember the name David French.

It may save you one day.

At trivia night.

Six months from now.

Because no one else will remember.
posted by duffell at 5:29 AM on June 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


NBC’s Katy Tur: ‘Growing Internal Dissent’ in Trump Campaign Over Racist Comments
“He doesn’t have much of campaign,” she said. “He hasn’t grown since he got the nomination. The campaign is saying they are currently trying to grow the operation and they will be growing the operation.”

“They don’t really have a communications team. Right