We are on the brink of a historic moment...
June 7, 2016 2:54 AM   Subscribe

With 694 delegates up for grabs between five primaries and a caucus, it has been widely predicted that Secretary Clinton would surpass the 2383 delegate threshold needed to clinch the democratic presidential nomination today. Jumping the gun, The Associated Press is reporting that, by their count, Clinton has already reached this number. Senator Sanders' campaign has condemned the media for its "rush to judgement" and the Clinton campaign has simply said "we still have work to do".

Meanwhile, Donald Trump, the GOP's presumptive nominee since May 3, has enjoyed his usual coverage and controversy. Overshadowing USA Today's tally of 3500 lawsuits, Trump's attacks on the federal judge presiding over civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University have earned him scorn from Democrats and Republicans alike. Amid reports of dysfunction and a lack of coordination and focus within his campaign, Trump continues to double down, ordering his surrogates to carry on his attacks on journalists and Judge Curiel. Following Clinton's evisceration of his foreign policy chops, Trump has only managed to respond with a tweet and *crickets*.

And we're not done yet, the primaries will finally be over June 14, when the District of Columbia holds its Democratic presidential primary.
posted by peeedro (2844 comments total) 56 users marked this as a favorite
 
wait, what's deez nuts doing?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:07 AM on June 7, 2016 [28 favorites]


here, it's arguably in the media's interest to depict a close race, no?
posted by angrycat at 3:07 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


My mother is working at a polling station, as she has every election. She said that the rules and systems for the primary ballot this year are far more complicated than in years past- i.e. who can and cannot vote in the CA democratic primary, rules governing independents, etc.

Add to that the general buzz that I've been hearing. The CA dem leadership have been in for Hillary for months. Most of the Central Committees are that way. It's not that California doesn't have a powerful progressive fringe (arguably more powerful than the California GOP, in fact)...

I hope tomorrow goes well. I fear that there will be enough irregularities for the Berners to call sour grapes and corruption on the whole matter.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 3:09 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm enjoying reading All of these Republicans responding to Trump's racism, mostly because these are all people who would normally get a soundbite in about how bad a president Hillary Clinton would be or how great their nominee is. Instead they're busy playing cleanup in their own party and saying that they're "shocked, I say, shocked, to find out that there's RACISM in this establishment!"
posted by mmoncur at 3:12 AM on June 7, 2016 [35 favorites]




The VoteMaster is writing about there's a full-court press on Sanders to start throwing towels. Let's see what he can get in return for doing that...
posted by DreamerFi at 3:17 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]




LeRoienJaune - I'd wager that the reason why the CA primary rules are more complicated is them trying to unfuck the jungle primary system, which is a stupid, stupid idea that the CA GOP pushed through because they thought it would guarantee them more districts.

Also, RE: third party voting, I can actually give a really good reason why not to vote third party in most of the US in the general (primaries, do what you want, go nuts). Sorry if this has been stated before and more eloquently elsewhere, but I had to get this off my chest.

The US runs its federal elections by the first-past-the-post election system - first candidate to hit 50% of the vote plus one wins. No one hits that threshold, you go again until someone does. Since this system requires a winning candidate to earn a majority of cast votes, that pretty much means that two political organizations will emerge, each looking to represent 50% plus one of the population. You can try all you want, but if you're only appealing to 30% of voters in an election, you not only win precisely 0% of the time, but you more or less guarantee that candidates that are closer to your side than the opposition will lose, because you will be stealing your support from their 50%.

So, what is one to do? Well, this is the dirty little secret of first-past-the-post: to get what you want, you don't choose based on who you want to win, you vote against who you want to lose. Since first-past-the-post guarantees that there will only ever be two viable candidates, having to chase 50%+1 of the population means that no candidate will ever really be able to speak to every interest of those that they seek to convince to vote for them. Sure, by happenstance or being more politically close to the candidate or party's platform some people will be happier than others, but as a rule, first-past-the-post makes chasing a perfect candidate a losing strategy. However, you can definitely make sure that the candidate that least represents your interests will lose, and therefore at least keep things from moving much further away from what you want.

Now, there's something to be said for when you're so far away from either candidate that things will be equally bad for your interests under both of them, but I'm willing to say that that's more of a problem that the GOP has right now than the Democratic Party, and there's sufficient air between the candidates that "they're both the same" charges don't really hold as much water as they did in 2000.
posted by Punkey at 3:32 AM on June 7, 2016 [47 favorites]


(For the record, I think single transferable vote is so much better. You rank your preferences in order of the ones you want to support and leave the others blank, and if no one hits 50%+1 and your #1 pick is dead last, your vote transfers to your #2 pick automatically, and so on until there's a majority winner. This way, you can still put your strongest support behind that 30% appeal candidate and really have a chance of sending a quantitative message and therefore shape discourse, but you can also be fairly certain to get someone that's at least somewhat like what you want.)
posted by Punkey at 3:37 AM on June 7, 2016 [25 favorites]


“My experience with Donald Trump is he doesn’t have a prejudiced bone in his body,” Orrin Hatch said.

"He's very tolerant of old, white, male Republican politicians who support him."
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:38 AM on June 7, 2016 [50 favorites]


"With 694 delegates up for grabs between five primaries and a caucus, it has been widely predicted that Secretary Clinton would surpass the 2383 delegate threshold needed to clinch the democratic presidential nomination today. Jumping the gun, The Associated Press..."

Ah, AP and NBC creating some controversy for themselves? What self-serving BS! Nothing-burger elevated to gripping (non) news story? Intsa-controversy? "Poke a finger in the eye" of Sander's supporters?

Pretty clear Hillary is going to secure the numbers needed today. Let me see, how to lessen that achievement with a hideously cynical "jump the gun" provocation of the self evident? Ah, why?
posted by WinstonJulia at 3:38 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


The US runs its federal elections by the first-past-the-post election system - first candidate to hit 50% of the vote plus one wins. No one hits that threshold, you go again until someone does.

what? No. the only "federal"election is for president and, electoral college aside, it's whoever gets the most votes...
posted by ennui.bz at 3:40 AM on June 7, 2016 [22 favorites]


Punkey: Actually, FPTP means the winner is the person with the most votes -- might be a plurality, not a majority. You could be talking about primaries or something, but senators, congressmen/women -- no. The President has that weird electoral college thing, but usually, FPTP = plurality winner.
posted by CCBC at 3:40 AM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


Okay, apologies - but the point still stands. If you're chasing a plurality of votes, unless something crazy like Perot in 1992 happens, it's in your best interest to vote against, not for.
posted by Punkey at 3:42 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I disagree -- but that's not so important right now.
posted by CCBC at 3:44 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Don't fall for 'lesser of two evils' argument

I have very little patience for that sort of thing in 2016. Trump is a ridiculous reality show clown, a novelty candidate who just won't go away. He is also openly racist and sexist, and damn near openly fascist. His administration would make us long for the days of W.

The stakes are just too high. If we found out that every bullshit conspiracy theory about Hillary was true, she'd still be better than Trump by miles. Pinch your nose and vote for the one who isn't Trump. (Bonus: First female president. But the main selling point here is that she's not Trump.)
posted by Ursula Hitler at 3:46 AM on June 7, 2016 [197 favorites]


it's in your best interest to vote against, not for.

luckily then, in the coming general election this will be your only option
posted by ennui.bz at 3:51 AM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


I fear that there will be enough irregularities for the Berners to call sour grapes and corruption on the whole matter.

Ah, no. There is no unicorn.

Ideally, Clinton would hold back on declaring until afterwards to remove the option to make this argument, but regardless CA is meaningless in terms of the nomination.

fivethirtyeight Hillary clinches nomination because more Democrats are voting for her

Also, John Judis on Sanders

TalkingPointsMemo John Judis on Sanders campaign
posted by C.A.S. at 3:51 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


But the main selling point here is that she's not Trump

I think the main selling point is that she is smart, knows what she's doing, cares about minorities, thinks globally, agrees with 90% of my politics, and could be a great president.

But whatever works for you!
posted by mmoncur at 3:54 AM on June 7, 2016 [230 favorites]


One of the few nice things about this election cycle is that I'm going to get to do both. I'm voting against Trump, who's many of my political nightmares come to life, and I'm voting for Clinton, who I voted for in the primary and think will be a genuinely good president.
posted by Akhu at 3:54 AM on June 7, 2016 [63 favorites]


[Trump's] administration would make us long for the days of W.

Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020, given the trend.
posted by ryanrs at 3:55 AM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


Blast from MeFi's past:
A moment in history; Obama Wins Presidential Nomination. (June 3rd, 2008)

For context, the Obama/Clinton race was much closer, but after the final primaries he was able to clinch the nomination with a rollout of ~50 superdelegate endorsements. Obama claimed victory with a thunderous speech in St. Paul, future site of the GOP convention, with lines like "this was the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow."

The Clinton camp hemmed and hawed for awhile -- memorably, campaign head Terry McAuliffe appeared on MSNBC fresh from Puerto Rico in a Hawaiian shirt, waving a bottle of Bacardi Gold and half-heartedly insisted Clinton had it in the bag. But after Obama gave his press gaggle the slip for a secret meeting, a week later Clinton wholeheartedly endorsed Obama, regretting not shattering that last glass ceiling but confident she and her voters had left "about 18 million cracks in it!" The two would later campaign together at a unity rally in (where else?) Unity, New Hampshire.

That primary season ended with such a sense of common purpose and positive energy that translated into a near-landslide victory -- given that Clinton is beating Sanders by a far wider margin, I hope he can swallow his pride, respect the presumptive nomination of our nation's first female major-party candidate, and join the fight. Or else Jeff Weaver better find himself a really amusing shirt to wear drunk on national TV.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:01 AM on June 7, 2016 [70 favorites]


While it is certainly not the only reason to vote for Clinton, it would be kind of nice if this year the U.S. managed to elect a woman and thereby join the ranks of apparently more enlightened countries such as Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, the Central African Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Dominica, Finland, France, Germany, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Malawi, Mali, Malta, the Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Moldova, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, the UK, Ukraine, the former Yugoslavia ...
posted by kyrademon at 4:16 AM on June 7, 2016 [62 favorites]


Managing Your Feelings is Not My Job - About women and winning.

bardophile posted this at the bottom of the last thread, and I would so hate for it to be passed over that I'm posting it again.
posted by Salieri at 4:28 AM on June 7, 2016 [57 favorites]


Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020, given the trend.
Ted Cruz.
posted by Bee'sWing at 4:29 AM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think the next logical step after Trump is Larry the Cable Guy (the character, not the comedian who plays him).
posted by mmoncur at 4:33 AM on June 7, 2016


Canada has never elected a female prime minister. Kim Campbell was not elected.
posted by My Dad at 4:33 AM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Meanwhile, Republican House Financial Committee chair Jeb Hensarling trots out legislation that's bound to appeal to the populist wing of his caucus: a proposal to repeal banking regulations.
The plan would also repeal the Volcker Rule, which aims to stop banks from making some risky bets with their own money. Moreover, the legislation would prevent a body of regulators known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council from designating any nonbanks as “systemically important.” MetLife recently won a federal court case to throw out its “too big to fail” label from the F.S.O.C., but other companies, including the American International Group and Prudential Financial, are still covered. General Electric’s financial unit has applied to have the designation removed.

At the same time, the proposal would allow the country’s largest banks to exempt themselves from capital and liquidity requirements and other regulatory standards if they hold enough capital to maintain a leverage ratio of 10 percent.

...The legislation would also restructure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and remove some of its powers. The plan would replace the agency’s single director with a bipartisan commission, which would be called the “Consumer Financial Opportunity Commission.” All of the financial regulatory agencies would have to abide by heightened cost-benefit analysis standards that critics have argued are designed to slow or even halt the rule-writing process. The financial agencies would also be reformed as bipartisan commissions and subject to the congressional appropriations process, except in the case of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.
This proposal fits in with Speaker Paul Ryan's stated desire to present a positive agenda the Republicans would enact under President Trump. And here you have it: Giveaways to the big banks.

Say what you will about Clinton, but I doubt she'd sign this codswallop.
posted by Gelatin at 4:37 AM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


I think the main selling point is that she is smart, knows what she's doing, cares about minorities, thinks globally, agrees with 90% of my politics, and could be a great president.

Those things are certainly what she's saying to sell her candidacy, yes.
posted by 1adam12 at 4:38 AM on June 7, 2016 [21 favorites]


Canada is far from the only entry on that list that's wrong. And, more importantly, enlightenment is not a checklist.

Hillary Clinton is a total establishment candidate and relative to possible Democratic nominees will be basically fine. It's probable that Sanders wouldn't have been able to push through any crazy financial reforms, but he would have at least brought those things up and made them part of the conversation. Hillary probably won't, and it'll mostly be business as usual (Democrat-relative, meaning hopefully progress on civil rights and social programs, which is certainly far better than we could possibly expect out of a Republican president). Any Democrat beats any Republican, but the people at the bottom can only take so much more "business as usual". The Overton Window needs to be moved pretty far pretty soon.
posted by IAmUnaware at 4:42 AM on June 7, 2016 [46 favorites]


Say what you will about Clinton, but I doubt she'd sign this codswallop.

That's the thing, her industry connections and past history doesn't give me warm-fuzzies about that, while I have a good feeling that Sanders would tell them to fuck off.
posted by mikelieman at 4:44 AM on June 7, 2016 [18 favorites]


Paul Ryan is failing up through this party like Big Head. He will be running next.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:45 AM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]


Oh here we go again: another round of men telling me why I'm wrong to be excited about Hillary Clinton.
posted by peacheater at 4:46 AM on June 7, 2016 [174 favorites]


From that Managing Your Feelings piece:

I am declaring a 72 hour moratorium on women having to worry about men’s delicate feelings. I’ve waited 60 years. America has waited 240. All 44 of America’s presidents — all 44 of them — have been men. Suffragettes were beaten, spat upon, ridiculed, arrested, imprisoned, hung from their wrists, beaten, force-fed, and terrorized just to win women the right to vote. I’ve shown up every election of my adult life and sent money to, handed out literature for, walked door-to-door for, and voted for one damn man after another. I am going to spike the ever-loving hell out of this football, do a dance in the end zone, fall to my knees and call on Columbia, high-five everyone I know, do the wave, show the English my bum, and then I’m going to open the champagne and really get crazy.

I stood, almost 8 years ago to the day, listening to Hillary Clinton give her concession speech and throw her support to then-Senator Obama. We were crowded in like sardines in the DC building museum, and I was standing next to a woman just a little older than I. We got to chatting, standing on our swollen ankles there in the stifling heat, and learned that both of our dads had been union organizers and that that was what had led to our own interest in politics. We wept a little bit together, sad to see that, once more, the cool young guy with no experience was winning out over the woman who’d paid her dues, earned her stripes, done what was expected, and then still failed because, well, reasons. We held hands for a few seconds, both aware that, things being what they were, it was quite likely we’d die without seeing a woman president. I took some pictures that I emailed to her afterwards. I was thinking today that I wish I still had her email address. I’d like to call her tomorrow and whoop.

We deserve that whoop. We earned that whoop. And even if I can’t whoop with her, I am going to go out under the brand new crescent moon and I am going to whoop like a banshee.

And so if you are a man who is going to have his feelings hurt tomorrow, who is going to be offended by women joyously celebrating a victory, maybe tomorrow would be a good day for you to go fishing with the guys. Read a book. Pound nails into things. Watch old Archie Bunker re-runs.

But, you know what? For a short time, managing your feelings is not my job. I’m going to be too busy celebrating. You do it for a change; it’s a tiring job.


posted by bardophile at 4:47 AM on June 7, 2016 [92 favorites]


[Hey folks, friendly reminder that there's no reason to rush into the brand new thread just to cram it up as quickly as possible with the exact same fighty arguments posted hundreds of times in all the other election threads. There is probably going to be some news that people can talk about today, so let's concentrate more on that.]
posted by taz at 4:47 AM on June 7, 2016 [68 favorites]


Voted at 6:30 this morning! Voter #3 in the district.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:50 AM on June 7, 2016 [27 favorites]


Thanks to everyone who is still voting today! There are so many people who cannot for one reason or another.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:53 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020, given the trend.
Steven Seagal.
posted by um at 4:55 AM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


Libertarian Johnson would not use marijuana as president

Well then what's the point? Of any of this?
posted by Going To Maine at 4:56 AM on June 7, 2016 [30 favorites]


Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020, given the trend.

Joe Arpaio, probably.
posted by duffell at 4:57 AM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


If Trump loses, I second the idea that Ryan has the inside track to the nomination.
posted by drezdn at 4:58 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


So the AP is jumping the gun by saying Clinton's nomination has been clinched one day in advance, when this outcome has been obvious to all for months? Okay.

I kid, I kid. But due to Reasons I'm not going to be able to make it to my polling place today, and I'm happy to know that my one vote won't be the difference between Clinton winning and losing.
posted by ejs at 4:58 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


On the one hand, I have serious doubts about Clinton's respect for the rule of law as regards herself.

On the other hand, Trump is a nightmare that America refuses to wake up from.
posted by oheso at 4:58 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


It would make sense to me if he said that he was not going to use drugs or alcohol because the job requires that his judgement be unimpaired at all times, Going To Maine, but I know a lot of people who support legalization but don't care to use.
posted by wintermind at 4:59 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Once again, for the record:
...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 5:00 AM on June 7, 2016 [45 favorites]


Alex Jones for VP! Let's make America Illuminati again!
posted by fungible at 5:02 AM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


Managing Your Feelings is Not My Job - About women and winning.
bardophile posted this at the bottom of the last thread, and I would so hate for it to be passed over that I'm posting it again.



Managing feelings of likely voters -- particularly those whose candidate you defeated in a primary election, since they're probably closest to being allies -- is critical work in politics.

Fortunately for all of us, my guess is that Clinton is smart enough to do that work, essays from some of her supporters notwithstanding.
posted by wildblueyonder at 5:18 AM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


Husband is Sanders supporter who thinks Clinton campaign going along with AP declaration is "skeezy" because it might suppress turnout. I kinda shrug at it, but I wonder what y'all think.
posted by emjaybee at 5:19 AM on June 7, 2016


She didn't go along with it.
posted by drezdn at 5:21 AM on June 7, 2016 [53 favorites]


Husband is Sanders supporter who thinks Clinton campaign going along with AP declaration is "skeezy" because it might suppress turnout. I kinda shrug at it, but I wonder what y'all think.

The Clinton campaign has been pretty clear that they did NOT want the race to be called yesterday (they were hoping for tonight), so I don't get what's "skeezy" about Clinton's reaction, other than the fact that she is Hillary Clinton and therefore is eeeevil and bad.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:23 AM on June 7, 2016 [82 favorites]


I think it's not at all clear whose turnout is going to be suppressed, and Clinton would rather the AP not have called the thing for her last night. I also think that there is not a thing she could say or do that Sanders supporters wouldn't consider "skeezy." She basically brushed it off and said to focus on the primaries. What exactly was she supposed to say that would have been acceptable to Sanders supporters?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:23 AM on June 7, 2016 [36 favorites]


And it's really just grasping at an outrage straw, anyway.

We have to kick our addiction to outrage.
posted by notyou at 5:24 AM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


How dare you! I'm not an addict! I can stop any time!
posted by amarynth at 5:26 AM on June 7, 2016 [28 favorites]


Canada has never elected a female prime minister.

Technically, Canada has never elected any prime ministers. Canada elects MPs, and MPs elect PMs. Campbell is as legitimate as every other Canadian Prime Minister, and I wish people would stop treating her otherwise. We've had twelve PMs by appointment (that is, not directly from an election) out of 23 total PMs.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:26 AM on June 7, 2016 [32 favorites]


Sanders will not win the nomination. He hasn't had a realistic chance for quite a while. I get that politicians might mislead their followers for various reasons but I've turned from a Sanders, in the primary, voter to a Clinton voter as a result of Sanders' talk of a contested convention.
posted by rdr at 5:26 AM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]


I'm just going to say one more time, I do not now and never will again buy the argument that "lesser evil" somehow equates to "good." This is the exact sort of thinking that has put the Democratic Party squarely where it is today and why voters haven't successfully done anything about it yet.

What exactly was she supposed to say that would have been acceptable to Sanders supporters?

What she said is perfectly acceptable to this Sanders supporter. Please give most of us some credit for not being irrational haters.
posted by Foosnark at 5:26 AM on June 7, 2016 [35 favorites]


The AP called it and reported it. They are a major respected news organization that reaches everywhere in the country. I doubt any significant number of people will notice the story just because the Clinton campaign mentioned it. (If they did mention it? I'm not clear on that.)
posted by Drinky Die at 5:27 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Managing feelings of likely voters -- particularly those whose candidate you defeated in a primary election, since they're probably closest to being allies -- is critical work in politics.

Fortunately for all of us, my guess is that Clinton is smart enough to do that work, essays from some of her supporters notwithstanding.


That piece rubbed me the wrong way, as have any number of other pieces written by various candidates' supporters over the election cycle. But both Clinton and Sanders have been personally quite good at not going down those paths, so I do my best to not get all hot and bothered about it.

Trump is a total shitshow and I keep thinking the whole edifice will implode but so far it just improbably keeps lurching along. It's amazing how effective it has been for him to simply assert that the rules don't apply to him, and then somehow they magically don't.

I worry about this election, because I've never seen such terrible choices. Clinton is smart and her policies are going to be ok-ish, but she has the most tepid support that I can remember and actively repels a lot of people. It feels considerably worse than Dukakis, which had been my previous low mark of noticing any enthusiasm.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:27 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm wondering how big of a shitshow r/sfp and r/politics will be over the next week.

Endless conspiracy theories and whining and let's take it to the convention posturing as people go through the stages of grief.
posted by vuron at 5:30 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: just grasping at an outrage straw
posted by oheso at 5:30 AM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


At this point I can't imagine people who were still planning to vote for Sanders over the weekend despite the long odds are now thinking they won't show up today because the AP said so.

But that might just be me: I will vote for Sanders today, and will go to the polls to vote for Clinton in the fall. They're different candidates but they're both candidates with a lot to recommend them.
posted by wildblueyonder at 5:31 AM on June 7, 2016 [19 favorites]


It's sad to see such negativity on what is truly an historic day. My heart is bursting today.
posted by Dashy at 5:32 AM on June 7, 2016 [32 favorites]


Husband is Sanders supporter who thinks Clinton campaign going along with AP declaration is "skeezy" because it might suppress turnout.

I think it could go either way re: turnout. the basic fact is that Bernie was not going to be the nominee after NY, but political discourse in the US is too idiotic to deal with the idea that he might have legitimate political reasons for continuing to campaign.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:34 AM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Endless conspiracy theories and whining and let's take it to the convention posturing as people go through the stages of grief.

I saw some Reddit posts yesterday that were very sad. People very upset about the AP call because they know -- THEY KNOW -- that Bernie can still win. Long threads where people talk about donating entire paychecks, all of their meager savings, disability checks, etc. because they think that if Bernie can win California, he will win the nomination. This of course is the state of the race as they know it -- as they've been told BY THE CAMPAIGN itself. Endless appeals to donate more. Donate today to send a message! To show the corporate media that this isn't over!

Sorry, but Bernie needs to own that shit. He's been running a bit of a traveling tent revival for awhile now. And at this point the people who are losing the most are the ones who can least afford it.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:37 AM on June 7, 2016 [70 favorites]


I voted for Sanders here in Indiana, and I'll be voting for Trump in the fall. He can't possibly be an effective President, but she might be, and that's frightening.
posted by MikeWarot at 5:41 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


We wept a little bit together, sad to see that, once more, the cool young guy with no experience was winning out over the woman who’d paid her dues, earned her stripes, done what was expected, and then still failed because, well, reasons.

Honestly, this is the sort of claptrap that has been so frustrating for me, as a woman who didn't support Clinton then and isn't thrilled about this current election. There were plenty of legitimate reasons to support Obama last time, and Sanders this primary, that have nothing to do with sexism. I will, of course, vote for Clinton in the unlikely event that my state seems precarious. However, there are a lot of people like me who aren't thrilled with the outcome. The Democratic party leadership hasn't handled the primary very well from the start of it, which is why some people are having a hard time making the decision to vote for Clinton in the general.
posted by missmerrymack at 5:41 AM on June 7, 2016 [43 favorites]


I voted for Sanders here in Indiana, and I'll be voting for Trump in the fall. He can't possibly be an effective President, but she might be, and that's frightening.

How effective does he need to be to sign what the Republican congress puts in front of him? Or nominate 1-3 justices?
posted by chris24 at 5:43 AM on June 7, 2016 [77 favorites]


Look, I don't like Clinton, but the foreshadowing of what racists will do in this country during a Trump presidency is horrifying, and cannot be allowed to happen.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:45 AM on June 7, 2016 [108 favorites]


Judging by the things some of my Facebook friends have been posting lately it doesn't matter what happens in terms of election results or polling or anything: Bernie is ACTUALLY going to win, and if he doesn't it is because Hillary is corrupt, and the whole thing is the fault of the democratic elites, not the people who are actually voting.
posted by dirtdirt at 5:46 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


*as they've been told BY THE CAMPAIGN itself*

Yeah, no. I am a Bernie supporter and have read all the fundraising emails. I can understand your desire for him to reign in the more unhinged sections of his supporters, like reddit conspiracy mongers, but the campaign hasn't said anything false in their communication. He might still win California, and there are, as ennui.bz points out above, a lot of reasons for him to stay in for at least another 30 hours or so. It isn't too much to ask.

Seriously, the likely scenario is that he endorses Clinton sometime after the primaries are over and before Convention, kind of like that candidate did with that other candidate all the way back in 2008.
posted by ent at 5:47 AM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]


Sanders' talk of a contested convention.

what has also been true since NY is that Clinton was not going to get 2383 pledged delegates. "contesting" the convention means following Dem party rules, going to the convention, making a case to the superdelegates, and having the convention select a nominee, rather than conceding.

"contesting the convention" is just following Dem party rules for selecting the candidate. it's not some radical attack on the party.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:47 AM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]


He can't possibly be an effective President,

Look northward to Michigan to see what kind of "ineffective" President Trump will be. Rick Snyder is the exact same kind of businessman-turned-politician -- if the legislature goes along with his pet thing, then he will log-roll everything else that they want. Michigan doesn't have a helmet law anymore. Michigan legalized sales of fireworks. Michigan is a irght-to-work- state now. Don't think that Trump will just curl up and do nothing for four years. He will enable everything that the GOP really wants, in return for, I don't know, them voting for him to change his letterhead to "His Awesomeness" or some shit.
posted by Etrigan at 5:48 AM on June 7, 2016 [82 favorites]


I can't vote for Clinton regardless of all the eloquently-worded essays that tell me I'm wrong. The Democrats have done nothing to address the many issues that Clinton has, instead they've just assumed people will vote for her. That's a dangerous assumption.
posted by tommasz at 5:48 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


The last link is part of James Fallows' "time capsule" series. His intent is to make damn sure nobody has any plausible deniability for supporting Trump.

That particular entry is the first glimmer of real hope I've felt in months.
posted by whuppy at 5:48 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I truly don't understand those who make the Sanders to Trump leap. How does that work? I mean they stand for completely opposite things? "Yeah, I was for revolutionary idealist fighting for the people, but now I'm for the racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, burning dumpster fire of a human being." What the what?
posted by bluecore at 5:51 AM on June 7, 2016 [157 favorites]


Nope. Sanders' strategy for a contested convention is to lobby superdelegates to throw their support behind him despite Clinton having more pledged delegates and having recieved more votes. That's was never going to happen unless some huge scandal errupted before the convention. Also, it's profoundly undemocratic.
posted by rdr at 5:54 AM on June 7, 2016 [19 favorites]


I've got a big grin on my face. I wasn't expecting to be so excited but it turns out I really am thrilled to see Clinton get the nomination. I fully expect to be weeping tears of joy come election night.


Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020, given the trend.

I've been worried about this ever since Trump was declared the nominee for the Republican party. If the Republicans can go for a man who is a lying, flip-flopping narcissist with no previous experience in government, with no policies, openly misogynistic and racist, fond of conspiracy theories he reads on the internet, and who is apparently not interested in actually doing any work in the White House, then that leaves the door wide open to anybody with enough fame and money to run as a serious candidate. Trump has serious issues, like being unable to tone down his idiocy to appear more "Presidential", but perhaps the next dumpster fire that shows up will be able to keep the mask on long enough to appeal to a wider audience. God help us.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:55 AM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


what has also been true since NY is that Clinton was not going to get 2383 pledged delegates

2,383 is a majority of pledged and super. If you're arbitrarily not going to count supers for her, why include them in the required total other than a quixotic attempt to pretend she hasn't won?

And funny how no one said it was technically a contested convention when Obama won with the help of supers. Even Bernie himself endorsed Obama as the nominee once he had the number including supers.
posted by chris24 at 5:56 AM on June 7, 2016 [22 favorites]


While I don't think that the median wage is going to get to "I can live with this student debt now" levels under Clinton, she isn't a fascist menace to everyone not-white or not-male.

Not enthusiastic at all but the votes still need to be cast in November.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:56 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I truly don't understand those who make the Sanders to Trump leap. How does that work? I mean they stand for completely opposite things?

And to do so specifically because they're scared of what she might do. A woman who tried to fix healthcare decades before it became fashionable and voted nearly identically with Sanders when they were in the Senate together. I don't think I understand people anymore.

We need to replace the word "sapiens" in our species designation. There are insect species that behave more rationally and cooperatively than we do.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:57 AM on June 7, 2016 [63 favorites]


If you're capable of Trump<>Sanders pivoting, you're not FOR anything. You're AGAINST something. You're frothing with rage against The Establishment and you're ready to Tear The Whole Corrupt State Down, Maaaaaan, and that enmity is more important to you than political positioning.

You should also consider switching to decaf.
posted by delfin at 5:57 AM on June 7, 2016 [175 favorites]


that leaves the door wide open to anybody with enough fame and money to run as a serious candidate.

Idiocracy was a documentary.
posted by mikelieman at 5:57 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I truly don't understand those who make the Sanders to Trump leap. How does that work?

Neither one is Clinton. The majority of Sanders-to-Trump types aren't voting for someone, they're voting against her. It's not principle, it's opposition.

The majority of Sanders voters, however, aren't the Sander-to-Trump types, and have actually thought about why their vote matters. They voted for him because they believe in the same ideals he does, and the majority of them will never vote for Trump because their ideals do not line up.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:58 AM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


e pluribus minimus malus

i might have to practice it but i don't have to like it

but bernie just needs to stop - today's the last day i want to see him run - after this, he can be a righteous dude and concede or he can be a bitter jerk
posted by pyramid termite at 5:58 AM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


All Bernie has to do is win 117% of California and New Jersey to take it all.
posted by double block and bleed at 5:59 AM on June 7, 2016 [27 favorites]


The supposed group of Sanders to Trump switchers seems like a media creation designed to tear down people who supported him. I honestly don't think there are that many Sanders supporters who have switched their allegiances to Trump. You can make the argument that it is wrong for someone to not want to cast a vote against him, but that doesn't mean they support him.
posted by missmerrymack at 6:00 AM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


Sanders' strategy for a contested convention is to lobby superdelegates to throw their support behind him despite Clinton having more pledged delegates and having recieved more votes. That's was never going to happen unless some huge scandal errupted before the convention. Also, it's profoundly undemocratic.

I agree that "superdelegates" are undemocratic. But criticizing Bernie for threatening to follow the rules of the party, for whose nomination he is running, is perverse.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:01 AM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


To my fellow Californians: Whatever your feelings about the top of the ticket, if you haven't already voted, please vote. Write in your cat if you really hate everyone at the top, but vote all the down-ticket items. And if you're in San Francisco (or anywhere similar), leave yourself plenty of time to get through the zillion-page ballot.
posted by rtha at 6:02 AM on June 7, 2016 [18 favorites]


If you're capable of Trump<>Sanders pivoting, you're not FOR anything. You're AGAINST something. You're frothing with rage against The Establishment and you're ready to Tear The Whole Corrupt State Down, Maaaaaan, and that enmity is more important to you than political positioning.

You are also likely protected from any severe negative effects by privileges afforded by your income, race, and sex. Just something to reflect on and consider before you burn down the house that we will all have to live in for four years. You might have an escape hatch but please consider the folks who don't.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:02 AM on June 7, 2016 [89 favorites]


Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020, given the trend.

Today is the first time in a long while that I can remember feeling sad about losing the <img> tag, because I can tell you exactly who the GOP will run in 2020. Every time we think they've reached the upper limit of caricature, they double down and show us that there's actually a more horrifying choice, so I give you:

Drinking Bird 2020
posted by Mayor West at 6:03 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Don't fall for 'lesser of two evils' argument

Indeed. Don't settle for an amateur like Trump. Greg Stilson 2016!
posted by Naberius at 6:04 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


But criticizing Bernie for threatening to follow the rules of the party, for whose nomination he is running, is perverse.

When he spent most of his campaign attacking as corrupt and undemocratic the very system he's now trying to use, it's not so perverse.
posted by chris24 at 6:04 AM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]


But criticizing Bernie for threatening to follow the rules of the party, for whose nomination he is running, is perverse.

What about criticizing him for his self-serving pivot from "railing against the rules of the party when superdelegates lined up for Clinton early because superdelegates are undemocratic" to "woo the superdelegates to undemocratically take the nomination anyway". Is that perverse?
posted by Etrigan at 6:04 AM on June 7, 2016 [47 favorites]


I truly don't understand those who make the Sanders to Trump leap. How does that work? I mean they stand for completely opposite things? "Yeah, I was for revolutionary idealist fighting for the people, but now I'm for the racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, burning dumpster fire of a human being." What the what?

I've been part of a few conversations with some not-insane Trump supporters who are also Sanders supporters. The common theme seems to be a rejection of the status quo, specifically, the neoliberal status quo (and some of them can even put it in those terms).

It's still a spectacular error in judgment to back Trump. There are lots of alternatives to the status quo that are terrible. Trump is one of them. But the idea that Clinton is status quo and Trump and Sanders are not is true enough at a crude level.
posted by wildblueyonder at 6:05 AM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


You might have an escape hatch but please consider the folks who don't.

At the risk of being presumptuous, I don't think there's a single person ITT who feels this way.
posted by fifthrider at 6:06 AM on June 7, 2016


(That is, that is playing the "Bern it all down" game.)
posted by fifthrider at 6:06 AM on June 7, 2016


I performed some research into Trump's properties, using his official business webpage, and frankly, where else am I going to post it except on the blue.

A numerical breakdown, excluding those categorized as past properties, 42 properties are listed. Thirty-three of these have the name Trump prominently in their title. Seventeen have disclaimers. Typical is this one for a Uruguayan project:

Trump Tower Punta del Este is not owned, developed or sold by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their principles or affiliates. Aetos SA, the owner and developer of the property uses the "Trump" name and mark under license from Trump Marks Punta del Este LLC, which license may be terminated or revoked according to its terms.

Investigating a bit further, I found that at least one more that didn’t have a disclaimer (Trump International Hotel and Tower, Vancouver) should have had one. Both Canadian properties have been under fire to change their names (drop Trump). This may be true of other international properties.

Some of the websites for these places are nearly unreadable while others well-designed.

A fair number of the foreign projects are incomplete, although all of them seem to be under construction rather than just existing as projected projects. This suggests that all of these Trump name deals are a bit old and no recent deals have been made.

Of the international projects, three are in Central and South America, two are in India, two in Canada, one in the Philippines, one in South Korea and one in Istanbul (!).

Two additional golf courses are in Dubai.

It seems (no big surprise) that he simply sold his name to a number of places. Also, there is the question of who will protect these if they come under attack considering the lightning rod nature of his candidacy. And, how are these businesses doing? Are people in Panama City filling the Trump Ocean Club?

Internationally, more so than in the U.S., Trump is ruining Trump's name. I'm going to guess that he'll be bankrupt in a year.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:06 AM on June 7, 2016 [21 favorites]


"Nope. Sanders' strategy for a contested convention is lobby superdelegates to throw their support behind him despite Clinton having more pledged delegates and having recieved more votes. That's was never going to happen unless some huge scandal errupted before the convention. Also, it's profoundly undemocratic."
I lost all respect for the man as some kind of principled fighter for reform of the Democratic party a few months ago when he saw the writing on the wall that so many of his supporters refused to and abruptly stopped constantly complaining about superdelegates. Presumably it was the moment he realized his best chance was to use them to steal the nomination from primary voters like he bitterly accused Hilary of trying to do.
posted by Blasdelb at 6:08 AM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


You are also likely protected from any severe negative effects by privileges afforded by your income, race, and sex. Just something to reflect on and consider before you burn down the house that we will all have to live in for four years. You might have an escape hatch but please consider the folks who don't.

this is such an odd way to appeal to someone to support your candidate: vote for Hillary, or you are a bad person.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:11 AM on June 7, 2016 [32 favorites]


The supposed group of Sanders to Trump switchers seems like a media creation designed to tear down people who supported him.

Same. I've seen vitriol online and in media that I just don't see IRL. I'm very active in Dem. politics in a very liberal town in my state, and almost no one I know who has been voting for more than 1 or 2 cycles is saying much beyond "I prefer ____ but of course I'll go with whoever will stop Donald Fucking Trump." From what I've seen, the media-quoted "Bernie Bros" or "HashTagBernItDown" or whatever just look like an extremely small but vocal group of either very-inexperienced, maybe first time voters, or paid ratfuckers. PUMA 2.0.
posted by Cookiebastard at 6:13 AM on June 7, 2016 [27 favorites]


I don't think there's a single person ITT who feels this way. (That is, that is playing the "Bern it all down" game.)

Yes, there was a commenter upthread who voted for Sanders in Indiana and who will vote for Trump in the general. Also, this is not a tiny number of largely irrelevant voters. At least not according to current national polls. The data suggests that not an insignificant number of voters (mostly white men and younger voters) are finding it difficult to pivot from Sanders to Clinton. I hope that in the intervening months this changes.

this is such an odd way to appeal to someone to support your candidate: vote for Hillary, or you are a bad person.

Sorry if it came across that way -- it was more an appeal to be honest with yourself. If you voted for Sanders in the primary but will vote for Trump in the general, does it really have anything to do with the type of country you want to live in? Or is just because you have a personal animus against one particular candidate?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:15 AM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


this is such an odd way to appeal to someone to support your candidate: vote for Hillary, or you are a bad person.

I read it as more "please consider the consequences of your vote to people less protected than you are."

Speaking as one of those folks whose situation is precarious enough for a Trump presidency to do me real harm, I'm wishing more folks would. Of course, a reasonable number of Trump's voters specifically have said they wish harm on some folks. (Witness: his support among racial/sexuality based hate groups)
posted by Archelaus at 6:20 AM on June 7, 2016 [57 favorites]


You are also likely protected from any severe negative effects by privileges afforded by your income, race, and sex. Just something to reflect on and consider before you burn down the house that we will all have to live in for four years. You might have an escape hatch but please consider the folks who don't.

this is such an odd way to appeal to someone to support your candidate: vote for Hillary, or you are a bad person.


This is an odd way to interpret what was said. Pointing out that privilege protects against the possible effects of Trump and to please consider those less privileged when voting is hardly calling someone a bad person.
posted by chris24 at 6:21 AM on June 7, 2016 [59 favorites]


I'll tell you my point of view on what is going on, for what it's worth.

Most people have come to an understanding that our political system is completely corrupt, and that is why they don't vote, don't register. They may have opinions on other political things, progressive, conservative, usually a mix one way or another, but this is their overriding concern with our political system. They might not vote because they have a despair that it would change anything.

I think that Sanders has appealed to these types of voters, regardless of how they think on other issues.. I think that if he was the nominee, he might get support from unexpected places because of his perceived integrity. I think that Trump appeals more than Clinton to these voters, because he claims to be funding his own campaign and says that makes him immune to special interests.

Clinton is viewed by these voters as the most compromised candidate. Much like Gore, Kerry and others, I have real doubts that she will rally the large parts of the electorate that have lost hope in the process. At least some of these voted for Obama, because Hope and Change. I think at least some of these people feel like they got sold a bill of goods with Obama.

Before people get all bent out of shape about it, I'm going hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, but I think Bill was a terrible President and I would expect more of the same. But Bernie, oh man, Bernie. He's the one that I wanted.
posted by jefeweiss at 6:22 AM on June 7, 2016 [32 favorites]


I voted for Sanders here in Indiana, and I'll be voting for Trump in the fall. He can't possibly be an effective President, but she might be, and that's frightening.

Mikewarot, there are worse things than an "effective" president, and I think its pretty clear even since Trump clinched that he will is likely to reveal them. Its not enough to say that we will be safe because he will be "ineffective". Bush showed us how this works, Trump will give us multiples of those results.

The damage Trump will do is being telegraphed in every way. This little bunfight about his fraud lawsuit and the judge is already off the charts for Presidential respect for the rule of law. I'm not even going to invoke any of the defence issues and his psychology, or his stunning threat to Treasury markets with his NYC developer mindset statements.

Its clear that he is downright un-American in his understanding of constitutional norms, the US strategic view of the last half century, and how government debt markets work.

The lack of logic here about the dangers of Hillary in comparison to Trump is truly astounding.
posted by C.A.S. at 6:22 AM on June 7, 2016 [50 favorites]


this is such an odd way to appeal to someone to support your candidate: vote for Hillary, or you are a bad person.

Since it comes down to Hillary vs Donald, well, yep.
posted by dirtdirt at 6:23 AM on June 7, 2016 [20 favorites]


How about: "Vote against fascism, or you are a bad person"?

The one place I poke my head out of my own little politically-like-minded bubble is my bad city-data.com habit and my city's discussion of this election is a tire fire. This city hasn't had a Republican mayor since the 30s but damn if there aren't Trump supporters all up in there blathering about his respect for "the little people" and "the common man." Both apparently are synonyms for "easily-conned middle class white dudes."
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:23 AM on June 7, 2016 [27 favorites]


I lost all respect for the man as some kind of principled fighter for reform of the Democratic party a few months ago when he saw the writing on the wall that so many of his supporters refused to and abruptly stopped constantly complaining about superdelegates.

If this campaign has demonstrated nothing else, it has really highlighted the deep antipathy toward actual, messy, tedious little "d" democracy among the Democratic mainstream. I swear, the more Clinton supporters I talk to, the more I'm reminded of the quasi-fascist suburban Reagan Republicans of my youth. It's revolting.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:24 AM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


Clinton is the Pragmatism candidate,
Sanders is the Idealism candidate,
Trump is the Racism/Nihilism candidate.

I certainly back Sanders over policy, and it makes sense for him to take his case all the way to the convention, considering it was Idealism that won in 2008.

But if I was a US voter*, you can be damn sure I would be voting pragmatically in the general, if that was my only option.

* every morning I light a candle below my massive portrait of Her Majesty, drink a shot of Rye, and thank my Northern Lights that I'm not.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 6:24 AM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


Is "Never give Donald Trump access to all the power of a US President, including nuclear codes." an eloquently worded essay? Seems like more of a warning label.
posted by emjaybee at 6:26 AM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


When there aren't bad people poised on the brink of winning?
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:26 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]




Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020

Don't overlook the possibility they'll roll out Cyborg Dick Cheney, the Sixty Million Dollar Ubermann.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:28 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I agree that "superdelegates" are undemocratic. But criticizing Bernie for threatening to follow the rules of the party, for whose nomination he is running, is perverse.

Should Clinton have continued campaigning past June 7th in 2008? Should she have gone to the convention and argued against Obama's nomination? That would also have been by the rules. She was lauded for throwing her support behind the presumptive nominee -- language to distinguish the person we all know is going to be the nominee after voting happens. We have a phrase for exactly this situation because most races have ended with one person being the clear winner before the votes are actually cast.

There are also rules that govern how one exists a campaign and how one supports other candidates and so on. Clinton followed those rules in 2008 after she made the choice to drop out of the race and back Obama. Sanders is saying that he might choose to follow 'the rules' that govern the actual voting, and the idea that he might make that choice is what's being criticized. Did Clinton break the rules when she conceded in 2008? (She did not.)

Because not even Sanders is criticizing the actual rules-following at this point, given that his appeal to taking the campaign to the convention relies on wooing the votes of unpledged delegates, which would (after today's voting) almost necessarily hand the nomination to the the candidate (Sanders) who a majority of primary voters did not vote for.

Today's voters haven't voted yet; Sanders hasn't chosen to try to contest the convention yet. I'm not going to, personally, criticize him for saying he might. I will criticize him if he does try to contest it, because I agree with the Senator Sanders of earlier in the race who argued that the unpledged delegates should not hand the race to a candidate who did not win the pledged delegate vote.
posted by cjelli at 6:29 AM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


also, the political benefit of the party convention as media coronation of the nominee is nil.

truth be told, if they can keep it polite, a "contested" democratic convention is likely to be good for Clinton in terms of publicity and coverage of issues, especially compared to Cleveland's upcoming second biggest garbage fire.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:29 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I truly don't understand those who make the Sanders to Trump leap. 

They both seem to stand for radical uphevals of the system. If you're life was ok trending down under Obama, or feels that way, Clinton can look like more of the same.

This really only works if you don't understand things in America.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:30 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


this is such an odd way to appeal to someone to support your candidate: vote for Hillary, or you are a bad person.

In addition to the people above who point out that you're twisting the words you quoted pretty hard, I'll just ask this: Where have you been? This has been the underlying message from both sides for a generation plus.
posted by Etrigan at 6:31 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


you seem to presume that I am totally obliged to vote for your candidate, regardless of any positions she supports, or even her politics in general.

You're not obliged to do anything. I'm going to work to stop a sociopathic, racist, misogynistic fascist. And encourage and hope that others do the same. If you feel somehow insulted by that, that's on you.
posted by chris24 at 6:31 AM on June 7, 2016 [55 favorites]


When there aren't bad people poised on the brink of winning?

In the two party system, that means never.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:31 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]




it makes sense for him (SANDERS) to take his case all the way to the convention, considering it was Idealism that won in 2008.

No, it doesn't really. It makes more sense for him to pack up and consolidate his arguments, and make the next plan while helping win this general election from this week forward.

Previous contested party conventions (Reagan/Ford in 1976) (Kennedy/Carter in 1980) did not help their parties in the general election, and both parties lost those elections.
posted by C.A.S. at 6:32 AM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


"contesting the convention" is just following Dem party rules for selecting the candidate. it's not some radical attack on the party.

Well, yes and no.

You're correct that Sanders would be perfectly within his rights as a candidate for the nomination to continue campaigning until the convention even if he has zero chance of actually winning the nomination.

But while that's not prohibited, it would certainly be a fairly large break from the tradition of the past 30 years. 2008's primary was much closer, but Clinton suspended her campaign a week after the CA primary. You'd have to go back to 1988 and Jesse Jackson to find a candidate who continued campaigning to the convention despite being unable to win.
posted by Coda at 6:33 AM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


you seem to presume that I am totally obliged to vote for your candidate, regardless of any positions she supports, or even her politics in general.

When your alternative is an openly racist proto-fascist who treats the rule of law with contempt, unless she happens to be an actual Nazi Party member and/or committed to the annihilation of the human race through nuclear war...yes. You can only get haughty about what people presume you are obliged to do because you are not actually in Trump's openly-declared cross-hairs, so lofty eighteenth-century political rhetoric doesn't seem like an obscene joke to you.
posted by praemunire at 6:35 AM on June 7, 2016 [28 favorites]


Previous contested party conventions (Reagan/Ford in 1976) (Kennedy/Carter in 1980) did not help their parties in the general election, and both parties lost those elections.

There is no way the GOP was going to win an election post-Nixon, and and there is no way Carter was getting a 2nd term... Frankly, I'm surprised that Obama pulled it off. I wouldn't hang it on the conventions...
posted by mikelieman at 6:36 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


the man of twists and turns: This really only works if you don't understand things in America.

I don't understand this statement. Who is the "you" referring to? Those that feel Clinton is more of the same, or those who don't understand Bernie->Trump?
posted by bluecore at 6:37 AM on June 7, 2016


Any Tar Heels in the house, don't forget to vote in our second primary of the year! We have a chance to take back one of our branches of government from the bigots and the haters today, and turnout will be low, so your vote will count a lot!
posted by rikschell at 6:37 AM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


It's really difficult to imagine Sanders actually taking it to the convention. He's earned a primetime speaking spot to address the entire nation at the convention, contesting would be throwing that away for nothing in return aside from looking like a fool.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:37 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]




I voted in New Jersey today. I'm just going to come out and say that I've actually started to like Hillary Clinton, something I wouldn't have said more than a couple months ago. I like her now. It bugs me that the media is perpetuating this idea that nobody actually likes Hillary, that they're just voting for her because she's the establishment and the or whatever. No, I voted for her because I think she would make a better president than Bernie Sanders, and I admire her. I feel good about my vote.
posted by wondermouse at 6:39 AM on June 7, 2016 [95 favorites]


[I'm really so sorry I didn't delete this post and ask for us to get one a bit later, once there was more news to actually discuss, and I apologize, but now, seriously, please drop all the making it personal stuff, the repetitive arguments that we've had over thousands of comments before, the Sanders/Clinton supporters suck stuff, the "bad person" arguments, and the whole "let's make it all about the that one 'I'm voting for Trump' guy." Etc. I understand feelings are high, but this thread is going be complete garbage for anyone who wants to talk about what's happening in the primaries today, so maybe vent your more over the top feelings elsewhere, and let's talk about election news here. ]
posted by taz at 6:41 AM on June 7, 2016 [55 favorites]


Any Tar Heels in the house, don't forget to vote in our second primary of the year!

Iowans too! The stupid Iowa Democratic party sent me a reminder about the primary this morning, which is a little late, guys. I already early voted last week, and people who aren't paying attention aren't going to have very much time to do research. But yeah: there's a primary in Iowa. There are some interesting races! If you live in Iowa, you should vote!
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:41 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


AP called it

Not to derail the derails, but do the news companies get more than brownie points for "being first"?

Is there a demonstraited financial incentive to breaking the story, no matter how facile, made up, or repetitive (looking at you CNN downed plane BREAKING for the fifth week in a row)???

(Feel the Bern but vote for sane!)
posted by sammyo at 6:53 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Looks like Florida AG Pam Bondi may have solicited and recieved contributions from Trump before their investigation:
New York's attorney general says the evidence is compelling that Trump's get-rich seminars — promoted in both Florida and New York — were merely a "bait and switch scheme" where people paid thousands of dollars for promised training and insight they never received.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, however, decided not to act on similar complaints filed by Floridians.

She, however, did take money from Trump — while her office said it was "reviewing" the complaints against him. Three days after the Orlando Sentinel wrote a story in 2013 about Floridians who felt scammed by a Trump affiliate, Trump's charitable foundation gave $25,000 to one of Bondi's campaign committees.

It was wildly unethical for her to accept this money. No self-respecting prosecutor would take money from a potential target.

Bondi's office always claimed there wasn't enough evidence to make a case. But I wondered how hard her staff worked to actually find any.

So I asked to see her office's investigative reports for myself.

Her office took about four weeks to respond and then finally did so with a massive document dump — thousands of pages, many of which were exchanges with the press about why they weren't investigating now and stressing they never had. A copy of an email I sent back in 2013 was included 39 different times.

All told, they provided 8,491 pages of records.

Perhaps they thought no one would really look at them.

If so, they were wrong.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:54 AM on June 7, 2016 [50 favorites]


Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020

Ted Nugent and Walker, Texas Ranger.
posted by TwoStride at 6:54 AM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


Sen. Jeff Merkley, the only fellow Senator to endorse Sanders: "We have to be unified to take on Trump. And that unity is going to begin today as soon as the polls close."
posted by zombieflanders at 7:01 AM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


hope he can swallow his pride, respect the presumptive nomination of our nation's first female major-party candidate, and join the fight. Or else Jeff Weaver better find himself a really amusing shirt to wear drunk on national TV.

While we're wishing, I vote for both honestly.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:05 AM on June 7, 2016


[Just a heads up that if you're making a comment that's within the parameters taz mentioned earlier, we'll be deleting it.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:08 AM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


Paul Ryan is failing up through this party like Big Head. He will be running next.

If Trump loses, I second the idea that Ryan has the inside track to the nomination.

This is definitely the case. Here's the thing about it though: if Trump wins, there's a 90% chance that his presidency will be such a disaster that, if the USA is still an electoral democracy, (indeed, if the world is still inhabited by people, not radioactive mutants) in 2020, the GOP will likely never hold the office of president for the the lifetime of every living millenial. I wonder if his hemming-and-hawing and hedging and slow 'reluctant' support of Trump is calculated based on the theory of Trump losing, setting Ryan up to be the great savior of the GOP, returning it to sensibility and bullshit wonkishness in 2020. It's a scary thought, too, since we're in an age of deep dissatisfaction with the status-quo, and this means thath Clinton will have to really do some heavy lifting, heavier than Obama, to get some legislation passed to win a second term against a sensible smart-seeming white dude who promises a change for the better through the kind of plausible sounding independence and freedom bullshit that Americans just gobble up.
posted by dis_integration at 7:11 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020

Are kardashians republican or democrat? One of each?
posted by sammyo at 7:11 AM on June 7, 2016


Pfft, the Kardashians haven't had a viable candidate since Gul Dukat.
posted by xedrik at 7:15 AM on June 7, 2016 [50 favorites]


Finally, at long last, our interminable election season is coming to a middle.
posted by Panjandrum at 7:18 AM on June 7, 2016 [103 favorites]


The damage Trump will do is being telegraphed in every way. This little bunfight about his fraud lawsuit and the judge is already off the charts for Presidential respect for the rule of law.

Yes! I wish the media would really hold his feet to the fire on this issue. He holds the opinion that a "Mexican" Judge should not be allowed to preside over his, Trump's, trial. So far we have heard that he does believe that anyone of Mexican heritage is incapable of ruling fairly as well as Muslims. Nobody has asked him about women or other minorities yet. And how does he feel about white men presiding over the trials involving all minorities and women since the country began? Does he feel that they have always been fair and impartial?

Any Tar Heels in the house, don't forget to vote in our second primary of the year!

I am extremely curious to see what happens with Renee Ellmers. I was represented by David Price (D) until they changed the boundaries in 2010. Renee Ellmers, backed by the Tea Party and Koch money won the election to become my Representative. Now they have changed the boundaries back, I will happily vote for Price to continue to represent me and Ellmers is up against Congressman George Holding-- another Republican. The most interesting aspect of this race is that Ellmers did not vote in lockstep with the Tea Party (for example she did not vote to shut the government down) so now they are opposing her, however, Trump is endorsing her. So it boils down to Tea Party vs. Trump. Who holds more sway with the voters of District 2 in Wake County? I will keep you posted.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:19 AM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


All I know is that I've been a registered Democrat since I was 18 years old, and now 22 years later when I went to vote here in the NJ primary, I was dropped from the rolls. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by 80 Cats in a Dog Suit at 7:20 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


California voter. I will be leaving work at noon to vote. I will then be picking up my mother-in-law and taking her to her polling place. I will then take a selfie of the two of us with "I voted" stickers and take her for some Jamocha Almond Fudge ice cream. I am then going to sit back and wait for Hillary's triumphant speech in Jersey.
posted by Sophie1 at 7:20 AM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


If Clinton goes two terms and is reasonably competent, and the person to run after her is reasonably competent, I would still feel optimistic about a Dem victory because the Republicans have systematically rooted out people who are reasonably competent from their party as a matter of principle. And the country will have gotten browner in the meantime, another constituency the Republicans have attempted to root out.

But that's counting a whooooole lot of unhatched chickens, so.
posted by emjaybee at 7:21 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020, given the trend.

Given the trend towards cartoonishly evil supervillain millionaires, Vladimir Putin, obviously.
posted by sour cream at 7:21 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


"...the battle for Middle Earth is about to begin. All our hopes now lie with two little hobbits, somewhere in the wilderness."
posted by Bob Regular at 7:21 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Here's the thing about it though: if Trump wins, there's a 90% chance that his presidency will be such a disaster that, if there the USA is still an electoral democracy, (indeed, if the world is still inhabited by non-radioactive mutants) in 2020, the GOP will likely never hold the office of president for the the lifetime of every living millenial.

I could not disagree more.

Not about the disaster part -- that's a given. But if Trump manages to win and the nation survives, in 2020 the Republican Party has many built-in layers of cognitive dissonance deniability. Trump was never One Of Us. Trump was never a True Conservative. Trump was opposed by Responsible Republicans from day one. Trump supported Democrats in the past and had liberal leanings all along. Truly, you can't blame the Real Republican Party for Trump, can you? We've been here all along promoting Conservative Policy and trying to get Real Conservatives Elected and holding our ground in the House, which is now the last bastion of True Conservatism on a national level. Trump was swept in by angry rabble-rousers, not us. Meanwhile, our Republican governors and state legislatures and local legislatures and school boards have been quietly turning America into Brownback's Kansas one inch at a time and VOTE FOR US for more of that but with a REAL CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT this time!

[Trump] What do you mean 'with a Real Conservative President,' I'M the Presid-- *yanked offstage by a very large hook-pole*
posted by delfin at 7:22 AM on June 7, 2016 [19 favorites]


. I will then be picking up my mother-in-law and taking her to her polling place. I will then take a selfie of the two of us with "I voted" stickers

Our polling place didn't have stickers :( Guess they only bring out the stickers for the general election.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:25 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020, given the trend.

The Hon. Senator Skeletor, R. Florida?

Or you know, Ted Cruz.
posted by happyroach at 7:26 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm "disappointed" that the first female major party Presidential nominee is Hillary Clinton rather than another woman I admire more, but it's the kind of disappointment you feel when you win the $700 million Powerball and find out you have to split the prize with another person. I'm still ecstatic that the day I've been waiting for my whole life is about to be here.

Lately I've been likening this to the Supreme Court glass ceiling - we got Justice O'Connor before we got Justice Ginsburg.
posted by sallybrown at 7:27 AM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


All I know is that I've been a registered Democrat since I was 18 years old, and now 22 years later when I went to vote here in the NJ primary, I was dropped from the rolls.

Not sure how NJ works, but in NY if you don't vote in two elections in a row and then don't respond to/miss a card trying to confirm you're still at that address, you get dropped. If that might apply.
posted by chris24 at 7:27 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


If/when Trump fails in November, I think there's a chance (maybe 0.5%) that he'll start his own political party called--what else?--the Trump Party, which will run candidates in Congressional and state-level races here and there across the country. There will be no ideology per se, though nativism and xenophobia will be the party's true hallmarks. All candidates will be groomed and approved by Trump personally. In the end, the entire enterprise will have turned out to be a scheme to promote the Trump brand (because megalomania) and to enrich Trump at the expense of hundreds of thousands of low-income donors.
posted by duffell at 7:28 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Dispatch from WASP "I work in finance" town for those who like anecdata - not a single one of my conservative relatives will be voting for Trump. They were very offended when my father even asked the question. They're all deciding between staying home and voting for Clinton - the cousin of mine who once called her the c-word has decided she's not that bad, after all.
posted by sallybrown at 7:29 AM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Our polling place didn't have stickers

Then I will make stickers because I promised the old bat that there would be selfies with stickers and Baskin Robbins.
posted by Sophie1 at 7:30 AM on June 7, 2016 [19 favorites]


I voted several weeks ago, thanks to my mail ballot, but holy smokes, did you see the Californian senate election?

34 freaking candidates and you're supposed to keep track of all their numbers and then mark only one tiny bubble?

Also, I always vote "Yes" for any ballot measure that raises taxes to help fund things. Why? Because muahahahahaha I don't pay L.A. County taxes.
posted by Katemonkey at 7:30 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm still ecstatic that the day I've been waiting for my whole life is about to be here.

I woke up so excited for the awesome speech she will be giving today.
posted by zutalors! at 7:31 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


In response to dances_with _sneeches' question about how Trump properties are viewed elsewhere.
posted by peppermind at 7:32 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yesterday I got an email from one of my editors asking if I could work on a piece about people who historically swore that a woman could never be president. I ended up focusing on Shirley Chisholm, who took it all the way to the convention in 1972 despite the indifference and mockery of her fellows. Tellingly, it was hard to research until I started searching for "Mrs. Chisholm." (No, her counterparts were not referred to in that form.)

Anyway, writing that piece (which is live today in TIME, search for it!) made me remember what a historic moment this is. Less than 45 years ago, we lived in a world that published a woman's weight and talked about how she was shockingly articulate for such a little woman. We lived in a world where people claimed that a woman should step aside to give men a chance (in Chisholm's case, black men, since apparently it was impossible to have a campaign that incorporated two demographics at once). People already knew to veil their most overt sexism—well, except for the doctor who publicly worried at a DNC committee event that menopausal women could get America into another world war. That is the world we lived in.

I am 35 years old, and ever since I was a little girl I have realized that a woman has never been president. Until today, I don't think I thought she could be. Let your politics be what they may, but today is a day to acknowledge a historic moment. Clinton may not end up being president, but as presumptive nominee she is doing something that has never been seen before in the United States. She is not only "Mrs. Clinton"—she is the former Secretary of State and a formidable political force. Think of what today means for our daughters. I hope they grow up in a world where they never, ever have to question whether a woman can do that.

Anyway, it's all hitting me like a ton of bricks (and straight in the feels). While I was researching my piece, I read tons of quips and comebacks by the very take-no-prisoners, gives-no-fucks Chisholm. This one feels particularly appropriate today on this day of transition:
“I am not the candidate of black America, although I am black and proud; I am not the candidate of the women's movement of this country, although I am a woman and I am equally proud of that. I am the candidate of the people of America. And my presence before you now symbolizes a new era in American political history.”
posted by mynameisluka at 7:32 AM on June 7, 2016 [145 favorites]


I'm "disappointed" that the first female major party Presidential nominee is Hillary Clinton rather than another woman I admire more, but it's the kind of disappointment you feel when you win the $700 million Powerball and find out you have to split the prize with another person. I'm still ecstatic that the day I've been waiting for my whole life is about to be here.

Exactly. She doesn't have to be perfect, she just has to be first. We will have others later, and maybe we'll like them better.

(though I've come around to liking her)
posted by emjaybee at 7:32 AM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


I would honestly expect a sizable subset of the Sanders voters to switch to Jill Stein before voting for Trump OR Clinton. Particularly if Clinton is expected to win by a large margin over Trump.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 7:33 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Green Party is only on the ballot in 21 states, though.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 7:37 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Punkey: Since first-past-the-post guarantees that there will only ever be two viable candidates

I'll insert the usual Canadian note here: This is manifestly not true, even if it seems to be logically watertight. The US is the only place I know of where it seems to be true. There are more counter-examples than there are examples of this phenomenon. (Canadian example: In the 29 federal elections we've had since WWI, the winning party has only gotten more than 50% of the vote 5 times. In the last election, 33 seats were won with less than 35% of the vote, and another 36 seats were won with less than 40% of the vote. It's not hard to have more than two viable candidates in first-past-the-post; it's only hard in the U.S.)
posted by clawsoon at 7:39 AM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Great article, mynameisluka. Worth reading.

Andrew Tully was right in the best way possible.
posted by Sophie1 at 7:40 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm very pleased we'll be taking our four year old daughter with us to vote for Hillary Clinton today.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:41 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


I know this is a joke, but holy crap that's what it's like over at a bunch of subreddits. Of course, as recently as last week the first page of subs like /r/politics were half-full of alleged Bernie supporters posting links to Breitbart, so...

This election has basically broken Reddit for me. Between /r/The_Donald's racist meme and lies and nonsense and /r/SandersforPresident's conspiracy theory leaking everywhere, the whole site is a mess.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:41 AM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


I would honestly expect a sizable subset of the Sanders voters to switch to Jill Stein before voting for Trump OR Clinton. Particularly if Clinton is expected to win by a large margin over Trump.

That's basically where I'm at. There's very little chance that Trump will take Minnesota so I don't see a downside in voting for Dr Stein in the general. On the flip side my parents are democrats who live in a republican stronghold state; they might vote libertarian just because the libertarians are a greater threat to Trump in their state.
posted by nathan_teske at 7:44 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I just voted in California! And I got a sticker! Yay! There wasn't much of a line at 7:30 am (one person ahead of me and one behind me, plus two others dropping off vote by mail ballots) so now I have time to go get coffee.

And omg the Senate race. It helps that there are really only two serious candidates, but I started to read all the statements in the voter guide for shits and giggles and by the time I got to page three I was like "hold me." Statements in voter guides are terrifying.
posted by sunset in snow country at 7:48 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Reddit was shit before the election and will be shit after. Avoid the usual suspects that are god awful.

Twitter is also becoming a tire fire where people engage in the lamest form of conspiracy theories and the get retweeted to death.

4chan of course is boiling over with lame /pol/tards doing endless cuckold memes.

Oh well at least I will always have Metafilter until the mods depose cortex after having to moderate too many political threads. I guess at least we aren't discussing tipping or chicago vs nyc pizza as well.
posted by vuron at 7:49 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


In the 29 federal elections we've had since WWI, the winning party has only gotten more than 50% of the vote 5 times.

What does that have to do with anything? When was the last time a US president got more than 50% of the popular vote?
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:49 AM on June 7, 2016


2012?
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:51 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


1964, for one.
posted by y2karl at 7:51 AM on June 7, 2016


Gosh. I almost feel sorry for Paul Ryan. This election sure is strange.
posted by R343L at 7:54 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Okay, apparently it happens more than I thought. But still, Clinton was elected with less than 50% both times. George W Bush the first time. Kennedy. Nixon. Truman... US presidents frequently get elected with less than 50% of the popular vote too. Doesn't mean we have a viable third party.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:55 AM on June 7, 2016


Only 16 out of 57 presidential elections have gone to a candidate who got less than a majority of the popular vote.

I think the point is that FPTP doesn't guarantee a two-party lock, not that FPTP guarantees third parties.
posted by Etrigan at 7:57 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Reporting in from the city of angels: a short line, including a toddler getting an extra I Voted sticker and hopefully a life-long love of democracy; no problems. Stickers were abundant! My only regret is that I can't donate my sticker to decorations like this because this year more than ever, I'm thankful and grateful for my right to vote.
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:58 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


What is truly weird and perplexing is when the winning presidential candidate has fewer votes than the loser.
posted by beau jackson at 7:58 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'll insert the usual Canadian note here: This is manifestly not true, even if it seems to be logically watertight.

I'll add another Canadian opinion and say "yes, it's completely true." All multi-party systems do with first-past-the-post is fracture the votes of the left wing and the right wing. The NDP has never been in power and never will be because the Liberals exist; it would take the near-total-collapse of the Liberals in order for the NDP to rise into governance. This nearly happened in 2011 and the NDP still didn't come close. In 1993, the Progressive Conservatives collapsed into near-nothingness and the right-wing vote was fractured for a decade between the PCs and the Reform Party.

Saying that "you can have more than two viable candidates in FPTP systems" is meaningless because we don't actually have more than two viable governing parties, and we never will. There have only ever been two viable options - going by the numbers, not political values - for governance in this country: the Liberals and whichever right-wing party is the Not-Liberals at the time.

There's a reason the Liberals are now exploring the enactment of single transferable vote, and a reason the Conservative Party is fighting like hell to try to prevent Trudeau from enacting it: single transferable vote means the effective end of Tory governance in Canada, because the left-wing vote in Canada is about 10-15% larger than the right-wing vote and barring the occasional case of a center-swing election caused by Liberal fatigue, that's always been the case; the Tories have almost never won an election where the Liberals and NDP (and to a lesser extent the Bloc and Greens) didn't dramatically split the left-wing vote.
posted by mightygodking at 7:59 AM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


Gosh. I almost feel sorry for Paul Ryan. This election sure is strange.

They got it on tape? Great! If Ryan runs in 2020 or whenever, just put out an ad cutting together him crying crocodile tears about racism with the admission that he still supports Trump. Better yet, make him keep on saying it again and again throughout the campaign so that we can have a supercut.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:00 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


this primary is so obviously generational...
posted by judson at 8:00 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


While Clinton is not my preferred Dem candidate, I'll be still be voting for her (via absentee ballot) come November should she clinch the nomination. I mean, that's a no-brainer. The only other options--voting Republican (cold day in Hell there) and not voting--are not feasible and not doing my part in the process.
posted by Kitteh at 8:04 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


He holds the opinion that a "Mexican" Judge should not be allowed to preside over his, Trump's, trial. So far we have heard that he does believe that anyone of Mexican heritage is incapable of ruling fairly as well as Muslims. Nobody has asked him about women or other minorities yet

Trump Spokesperson Suggests Trump's Sister Could be Biased as Judge
posted by nubs at 8:06 AM on June 7, 2016


OnceUponATime: What does that have to do with anything? When was the last time a presidential candidate in the US got more than 50% of the vote?

2012. :-) And 2008, and 2004, and 18 of 24 times since WWI. (On preview, what everybody else said.)

More to the point, 10 Canadian elections have been won with less than 40% of the popular vote, something no American President has done since Lincoln. First past the post doesn't need to condemn you to two parties. Believing that your only choice is to vote for the lesser evil does.

First-past-the-post should make third parties stronger, because it's more prone to electoral freaks that crush top parties or launch third parties.

(The fact that you have so few third-party winners at the state level is the really crazy thing. I wonder if it has something to do with the strong-president/governor system. Did the Latin American countries which copied the US system have the same feeble third parties?)
posted by clawsoon at 8:06 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


A lesson is learned, but the damage is irreversible.
posted by penduluum at 8:06 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


> I just voted in California! And I got a sticker!

Me too! The line was very short when I got there a few minutes after the polls opened. I had my printouts of who/what/how to vote on the various peoples and initiatives, so aside from making sure I didn't vote for too many DCCC candidates, it all went pretty quick.
posted by rtha at 8:09 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


I never get a sticker when I vote. WTF Pennsylvania?
posted by octothorpe at 8:12 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


If somehow the Trump U scandal blew up enough to reveal bribes to our scumbag Texas Gov. and to Florida's AG, and it actually did them some damage, that would be a marvelous thing. I know better than to assume justice will ever happen, especially in those states, but damn. It would be a nice three-fer.
posted by emjaybee at 8:13 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


[A few comments deleted; rewinding to remove a few "the FBI will get Clinton/she's unelectable" and "Sanders is turrible/he's unelectable"; if you haven't been around in the other threads these points have been made absolutely ad nauseam, they are both well represented views.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:13 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think the difference is that, in the absence of a parliamentary system, third party candidates are essentially powerless to influence policy in a substantive way. In a parliamentary system, if one party doesn't get an outright majority of seats in parliament, it's possible to form a coalition government, and then those smaller parties often have a disproportionate influence, as they can threaten to cause collapse of the government if they don't get their way on key issues that matter to them. I see that happen all the time in the Indian government. If coalitions cannot be formed, the non major party candidates are basically always in opposition, unable to really influence policy.
posted by peacheater at 8:16 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Did the Latin American countries which copied the US system have the same feeble third parties?

Mostly presidential systems falter and collapse [PDF].
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:17 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm really hoping this news doesn't keep Hillary supporters from casting their vote today because Democrats do not need anymore wind in Bernie's futile momentum!!!! sails, which is why the Hillary campaign was rightly slightly put off by the timing of the announcement. But whatever, it's done.

So: FIRST FEMALE CANDIDATE FROM A MAJOR PARTY HOLY SHIT OMG YES. It was a long time coming, America. Here's to hoping my 2 year old daughter grows up knowing intrinsically that women can obviously be presidents because, duh, mom, Hillary.
posted by lydhre at 8:18 AM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


Idiocracy was a documentary.

I did notice an Elizondo running for the U.S. Senate in California.
posted by ryanrs at 8:18 AM on June 7, 2016


I'd take the extremely delightful and progressive Terry Crews over literally any Republican (and most Democrats) if he ran.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:23 AM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


mightygodking: Saying that "you can have more than two viable candidates in FPTP systems" is meaningless because we don't actually have more than two viable governing parties, and we never will.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. You can see on a provincial level that first past the post makes third parties viable in Canada in a way that it (for whatever reason) doesn't in the U.S. And given poll numbers last spring, we could've well had an NDP government had Layton still been alive, or if the niqab debate in Quebec had fallen out slightly differently.

the Tories have almost never won an election where the Liberals and NDP (and to a lesser extent the Bloc and Greens) didn't dramatically split the left-wing vote.

You're making the assumption that the Liberals are a left-wing party. Through the '90s, they were right-wing. They're a way-the-wind-blows party. (That's how they managed to govern Canada for more of the 20th century than the Communists governed Russia.)

However, you make a good point, and you've got me reconsidering what's counted as the typical Tory way to win. The traditional wisdom was that the Tories won in tired-of-the-Liberals landslides, with 50%+ of the popular vote, a la Diefenbaker and Mulroney. But Harper re-wrote that script, didn't he?

Anyway, we are somewhat off topic, which is mostly my fault. There does seem to be something in the water in the U.S. that causes people to panic if they don't have one of two people to rally around. That's how they've ended up with so many otherwise-sensible Republicans endorsing Trump.
posted by clawsoon at 8:23 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, the U.S. is notable for being one of the only countries that divides power between the legislative and exective branches to not have expedienced a major constitutional crisis arising from a conflict between the executive and the legislature.

Something tells me that is about to change, to be honest.
posted by eagles123 at 8:25 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]



AP called it

Not to derail the derails, but do the news companies get more than brownie points for "being first"?


The NBC Decision Desk chief was on MSNBC last night and said that the AP called it for Trump as soon as he had the delegates, so they did the same for the Democrats. They said they didn't expect either campaign to be happy with the decision but they did it anyway.
posted by zutalors! at 8:26 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


"You could easily argue that the president of the United States is a racist" - Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) on CNN just now
posted by zombieflanders at 8:29 AM on June 7, 2016




The NBC Decision Desk chief was on MSNBC last night and said that the AP called it for Trump as soon as he had the delegates, so they did the same for the Democrats. They said they didn't expect either campaign to be happy with the decision but they did it anyway.

Yeah, as aggravating as it may be, the news organizations are just doing their job, which is to seek out and report the, y'know, news.

The people to be pissed at here are the superdelegates who couldn't manage to shut the fuck up for another 24 hours, but just had to make themselves feel important or whatever when the AP surveyed them.
posted by dersins at 8:32 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


"You could easily argue that the president of the United States is a racist" - Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) in CNN just now

Projection, thy name is Republicans.

I doubt Trump is disciplined enough to apply any strategy consistently, but it'll be interesting to see how often Republicans try attempts from Rove's playbook, like the one zombieflanders just cited: Accuse one's opponents of your own flaws. And how badly those attempts will fail, like that one.

Seriously, does Zeldin seriously think his contention will play with anyone who doesn't already have a downloaded jpg of Obama photoshopped as a witch doctor, or is he just trying to play to the media's well known "both sides do it" bias?
posted by Gelatin at 8:34 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]




The whole Trump attacking the judge fiasco has just been so gobsmacking ridiculous. It's unprecedented Springtime For Hitler shit.
Rebuking a release from campaign staff mid interview, calling them not smart, and telling everyone to keep attacking!

But here is what I tend to check each morning:
Sam Wang's numbers at http://election.princeton.edu/ (Obama at +5 approval, 4% EV meta-margin, 70% Clinton Nov. probability)
TPM's chart (Clinton +4.2)
this huffpo aggregated chart (Clinton +5.0)
posted by Theta States at 8:37 AM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


So my issue with the Democratic primary is this.

According to Google, Clinton has 1,812 Pledged delegates. Sanders has 1,521.

So that's a slightly less than 300 delegates. Less than CA's pledged delegates as a whole.
Now, especially in the last few primaries, Clinton and Sanders have been fairly close in the amount of delegates won in each primary. If the Superdelegates were actually being...I don't know...democratic about this processes, Sanders should have almost half of all those Clinton Superdelegates, putting them in a much closer overall position.

But he doesn't, because the Superdelegates get to vote for whomever they want. Sanders could sweep CA and the other primaries today, and he'd still be about 150 (100 short with Supers) pledged delegates short of the 2,383 needed for nomination. Leaving Clinton STILL closer to the nomination as long as her Superdelegates refuse to shift their votes to reflect the will of the voters.

How is this democratic? How is this right? How is anyone OK with this? I'm honestly super angry and confused about this. I've never trusted either party, but this is actively making me dislike the Democratic party.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 8:37 AM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


"You could easily argue that the president of the United States is a racist" - Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) on CNN just now

OR YOU COULD ARGUE THAT HE IS LITERALLY A MANTIS SHRIMP AND HIS CLUBCLAW HITS WITH A BULLET'S FORCE
posted by dersins at 8:40 AM on June 7, 2016 [36 favorites]


Our two candidates in 2024: Accelerando's Elevated Lobsters' minister on the far left vs the left of center Mantis Shrimp prime.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:42 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Pretend superdelegates don't exist. Sanders could sweep every state today and he'd still be solidly behind, because of proportional delegate allocation. Clinton is winning because more people are voting for her. Period.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:43 AM on June 7, 2016 [70 favorites]


How is this democratic? How is this right? How is anyone OK with this? I'm honestly super angry and confused about this.

Supers have shifted their votes before when a candidate has won more pledged delegates. A big chunk of Clinton superdelegates switched to Obama in 2008 after he pulled ahead in the pledged delegate count, but not before.

Superdelegates have never used their votes to get an overall count that reverses what the outcome would be from pledged delegate counts alone.
posted by maudlin at 8:43 AM on June 7, 2016 [21 favorites]


How is this democratic? How is this right? How is anyone OK with this?

Because if you eliminate the superdelegates completely from the equation, if superdelegates did not exist and did not have a vote, Clinton would still win. By a plurality of the votes and a plurality of the delegates, as you do in a democracy.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:44 AM on June 7, 2016 [29 favorites]


Pretend superdelegates don't exist. Sanders could sweep every state today and he'd still be solidly behind, because of proportional delegate allocation. Clinton is winning because more people are voting for her. Period.

But if super delegates didn't exist, we have no idea what the race would look like, because many voters are swayed by where the super delgates have pledged, and what the media reports as the current delegate count
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:45 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020, given the trend.

Larry Craig might be ready for a big comeback. So to speak.
posted by aught at 8:45 AM on June 7, 2016


Superdelegates have never used their votes to get an overall count that reverses what the outcome would be from pledged delegate counts alone.

That is why they exist, though. It's the panic button. The problem is it invites rules-lawyering about what conditions justify pressing the button. Some draw the line at Trump or a Trump-like candidate, some draw the line at "I joined the Democrats so I could compete for their nomination but didn't get enough votes."
posted by tonycpsu at 8:45 AM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


I'm really curious to know which actual human being voters take the temperature of the superdelegates before deciding who to support.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:46 AM on June 7, 2016 [54 favorites]


Sanders could sweep CA and the other primaries today, and he'd still be about 150 (100 short with Supers) pledged delegates short of the 2,383 needed for nomination. Leaving Clinton STILL closer to the nomination as long as her Superdelegates refuse to shift their votes to reflect the will of the voters.

How is this democratic? How is this right? How is anyone OK with this? I'm honestly super angry and confused about this. I've never trusted either party, but this is actively making me dislike the Democratic party.

Because, leaving aside the likelihood that Sanders won't actually be sweeping the primaries today, the will of the voters has been expressed such that Clinton has something like 4 million primary votes more than Sanders. It's Sanders who has been talking about overturning the will of the voters, by getting superdelegates to switch to him based on some perception of "momentum," despite the fact that the actual delegate math is relentlessly against him.

It's arguable that superdelegates aren't democratic, but I'd point out that if the Republicans had such a system, they might well have been able to keep the racist, sexist dumpster fire of the Trump campaign from carrying their standard, behind which their other candidates are dutifully marching.
posted by Gelatin at 8:47 AM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


many voters are swayed by where the super delgates have pledged, and what the media reports as the current delegate count

Is there any kind of factual proof of this? Studies or the like? Polls?
posted by sallybrown at 8:47 AM on June 7, 2016 [19 favorites]


many voters are swayed by where the super delgates have pledged, and what the media reports as the current delegate count


That is a significant goal-post shift from the original question.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:48 AM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


According to Google, Clinton has 1,812 Pledged delegates. Sanders has 1,521.

So that's a slightly less than 300 delegates. Less than CA's pledged delegates as a whole.
Now, especially in the last few primaries, Clinton and Sanders have been fairly close in the amount of delegates won in each primary. If the Superdelegates were actually being...I don't know...democratic about this processes, Sanders should have almost half of all those Clinton Superdelegates, putting them in a much closer overall position.


So, here's the thing. In this fantasy world in which superdelegates are awarded in the exact same proportions as regular delegates, Clinton's lead would be proportionally the exact same as it is now, meaning Sanders would still need to win California and New Jersey by like fifty points to even come close.

Which, while perhaps theoretically possible in the sense that the arithmetic is correct, is about as realistic as my mom winning the CA primary as a write-in candidate AND winning the Powerball on the same day.
posted by dersins at 8:48 AM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


because many voters are swayed by where the super delgates have pledged, and what the media reports as the current delegate count

What? I've never once heard this mentioned as a statistically-significant factor in voter decisions.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:48 AM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's unfalsifiable, but it's reasonable to believe that media reports of delegate counts that include superdelegates would affect how people might vote. My gut says it's a very small factor, certainly not large enough to overcome Sanders' deficit, but there's no way of knowing with any certainty. However, it's not an argument that helps Sanders, because he was against superdelegates before he was for them.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:49 AM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


Gary Johnson is polling on the verge of the debate threshold

Please please please.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:49 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


what the media reports as the current delegate count

At least in the media I’ve been consuming, there’s always been a pretty dang bright line drawn between pledged and super delegates.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:52 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


All those supers who supported Clinton early in the 2008 primaries didn't seem to make people less inclined to vote for Obama. Once he was in the lead for pledged delegates, he stayed in the lead.
posted by maudlin at 8:53 AM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


I hope Clinton wins big in California just so it increases the odds Sanders ends his campaign.
Right now Clinton is over +4% against Trump. Just imagine the numbers 2 weeks after Sanders is out?
posted by Theta States at 8:54 AM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


As far as places becoming awful thanks to Trump, the waiting for game chatroom in StarCraft II has become total shit. There's always several Trump supporters spamming the chat with lots of crap. I'm not sure how much is actual support and how much is just trolling, but either way I find while waiting for a game I typically have to mute three to five users just to keep the chat screen from filling entirely with pro-Trump stuff.

And by "pro-Trump stuff" I mean mostly mindless crap like simply repeating his name (in all caps of course), over and over. Or spelling it out one letter per line to maximize the space it fills up in the screen. Or two or three of them collaborating on a "WHO WILL PAY FOR THE WALL?" "MEXICO!" call and response.

Anyway, I do hope that Sanders admits reality after the California votes are counted. I voted for him in the Texas primary, but I've been wanting him to concede for weeks now.

And the idea that somehow Sanders can, or should, overturn the will of the Democratic voters with the power of superdelegates is both sexist and profoundly anti-democratic. I fully support ending the superdelegate system, but using them to overturn the will of the voters is such a terrible idea I'm still stunned that anyone is advocating for it.
posted by sotonohito at 8:54 AM on June 7, 2016 [18 favorites]


If reporting superdelegate totals is enough to affect a race, a strong candidate and campaigner like Obama can overcome that alleged deficit. In 2008 Clinton had an early lead in open superdelegate endorsements but lost even some early states.
posted by muddgirl at 8:55 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Despite assertions to the contrary Sanders will not keep Clinton from viability in California. In fact it's likely that Clinton will win in California and Nj at a minimum.

Sanders is selling a bullshit scenario because he and Tad Devine don't want fundraising to crater.

Same with the idea that Sanders is a better GE candidate despite having almost no cash on hand and no super Pacs and zero negative ads against him.

Sanders is a good guy and I like some of his positions but he's done and calling Hillary Clinton undemocratic is total bullshit.
posted by vuron at 8:55 AM on June 7, 2016 [21 favorites]


I can sort buy the premise that including superdelegates who've announced who they plan to back in the overall vote count possibly influence voters, although I'm not sure that it actually does. What I'm also not certain of is that it particularly helps one candidate or the other, in aggregate:
- Does it help the candidate who they back, because people think they're winning and want to back a winner?
- Does it help the candidate who they don't back, because people think the other candidate is winning 'unfairly' and are therefore more energized to vote?
- Does it help the candidate who they don't back, because people think 'well, they're already winning, I can safely vote for someone else and not affect the outcome?'
- Does it help the candidate who they back, because people don't bother to come out to vote for their opponent?

It's not obvious to me that even if including them in the count has an effect on individual voter's choices, that it necessarily follows that it has an effect on the outcome of the race as a whole.

Separately, and anecdotally, I've seen far more reporting that splits out the count than combines it; how prevalent each method of counting is would be an interesting study.
posted by cjelli at 8:56 AM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


And by "pro-Trump stuff" I mean mostly mindless crap like simply repeating his name (in all caps of course), over and over. Or spelling it out one letter per line to maximize the space it fills up in the screen. Or two or three of them collaborating on a "WHO WILL PAY FOR THE WALL?" "MEXICO!" call and response.

Sounds like the perfect way to alienate potential voters.

Clinton should hire a few clipboard people to stand on busy street corners during rush hour and approach people with the whole "Do you have a few minutes to talk about Donald Trump?"
posted by sallybrown at 8:57 AM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


In previous races I think they've always given combined totals. But this year I only saw those combined totals after Iowa and New Hampshire. Bernie responded by pointing out (accurately) that those superdelegates didn't really vote until July and shouldn't be counted one way or the other yet, and news organizations mostly seemed to realize that he had a point, and reported superdelegates and pledged delegates separately after that point, at least the ones I watched/read.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:00 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders is selling a bullshit scenario because he and Tad Devine don't want fundraising to crater.

I’m not saying directing those dollars you had earmarked for Sanders at paying off peoples’ outstanding medical debts instead is a great idea, but if donors wanted to take a cue from John Oliver…
posted by Going To Maine at 9:00 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Because, leaving aside the likelihood that Sanders won't actually be sweeping the primaries today, the will of the voters has been expressed such that Clinton has something like 4 million primary votes more than Sanders. It's Sanders who has been talking about overturning the will of the voters, by getting superdelegates to switch to him based on some perception of "momentum," despite the fact that the actual delegate math is relentlessly against him.

Yeah, the momentum argument is so ludicrous that I can't believe people can make it with a straight face.

If the Cavs had scored 10 points in a row to end game 2 of the NBA finals, they still would have lost to Golden State by 23 points. Should they be declared the winner because "momentum?"
posted by dersins at 9:00 AM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


From the article: "Trump's charitable foundation gave $25,000 to one of Bondi's campaign committees."

Wait a minute, are they missing the lead? Maybe the article is being loose with terminology but it is flat out illegal for a 501(c)(3) charity to give money to political activities.
posted by JackFlash at 9:01 AM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


Democracy is messy and I'm sure the super delegate system could be improved. I'd be all for party rules that says a super delegate loses their vote if they share their support before some percent of regular delegates are assigned or any number of hacks to make the super delegates a true escape hatch to make sure the party's candidate is within the norms of the party and not an extreme outsider (like Trump, not Sanders).

Anyway I am super excited about the possibility of a woman president. Big smiling selfie posted to social media excited. I was considering attending a campaign event today for some minor state position tonight I think because I feel less cynical.
posted by R343L at 9:01 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


You can see on a provincial level that first past the post makes third parties viable in Canada in a way that it (for whatever reason) doesn't in the U.S.

Not really. I think you're conflating the fact that different parties have won leadership races with the viability of FPTP for a multiparty system, and that just ain't so.

What FPTP does, realistically, is create two "slots" for parties to compete. Those slots can be filled by any two parties, they don't have to necessarily be the Tories or Liberals (although they usually are), but realistically almost every election in Canadian history comes down to a competition between the occupants of those two slots - one slot for the "right" party (usually centre-right, to gain as much ideological advantage as possible and as wide a swath of the electorate as possible) and one for the "left" party (centre-left). Parties can and do collapse and lose their "slot," but the party that replaces them inevitably drifts to the politics of that "slot," moderating themselves for electoral advantage.

Take BC, for example. Right now there are two parties in BC who are electorally viable: the BC Liberals, who are distinct from the regular Liberal Party (right) and the NDP (left). The BC Liberals were not an electoral force in British Columbia until the Social Credit Party, who used to occupy the "right" slot in BC politics, collapsed after the Vander Zalm scandals. The SoCreds died as an electoral force quickly, because the BC Liberals became the new ascendant "right" party; in fact, the reason they died so quickly is because the 1991 BC election had the BC Liberals and SoCreds splitting the centre-right vote, which let the NDP back into power. All of the other parties are effectively protest parties.

This is the case in most of Canada. Federally, it's the Tories and the Liberals (with the 1990s being an interesting period as the PCs and Reform fought for control of the "right" slot before eventually unifying). In Manitoba, it's the NDP and Tories taking the "left" and "right" slots, with the Liberals mostly a tiny third party for most of the last sixty years (a brief flare-up in the 80s gave the Tories some easy wins). In Saskatchewan, it's the NDP and the Saskatchewan Party, who took the PC's "right" slot. In New Brunswick and Newfoundland and PEI it's the Tories and Liberals. In Quebec it's the Parti Quebecois and the Liberals; the CAQ (and ADQ before it) have threatened to take one of the slots from the PQ or the Grits, but it looks like they've been relegated to protest-party status and unless they make a decisive move in the next election they'll probably get tagged with the whiff of electoral failure. Alberta right now is in a transition stage as the PCs start collapsing and Wildrose takes the "right" slot from them, while the NDP is consolidating its hold on the "left" slot.

Really, the only reason anybody takes the multiparty idea seriously is that Ontario is the biggest province in the country and it's the outlier because the NDP managed to contend as a major political party for years, and even win an election, but that was mostly down to the individual political talents of Stephen Lewis and then Bob Rae rather than demonstrating a loophole or entry point in the general two-party optimization that FPTP demands - which shows when you see the general stench of failure that has accompanied the Ontario NDP for the past twenty years despite an electoral landscape that ought to ostensibly favour them, and Andrea Horwath's desperate attempts to tack to the center because that's where the votes are.
posted by mightygodking at 9:01 AM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'd take the extremely delightful and progressive Terry Crews over literally any Republican (and most Democrats) if he ran.

Good news. We are going to get a little President Camacho in this election. Cohen called Judge and they decided to seize the moment and write campaign ads for Camacho satirizing Trump.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:02 AM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


Cohen called Judge and they decided to seize the moment and write campaign ads for Camacho satirizing Trump.

I mean, all they really need to do is take actual things Trump says and sub in Camacho's face and name.
posted by dersins at 9:05 AM on June 7, 2016


And, despite my early support for Sanders and my general feeling that Clinton represents the status quo in essential economic issues, I am happy to finally see a woman as the candidate for a major political party and the likely winner in the general. As Tychus Findlay once said, in radically different circumstances, "hell, it's about time". Just to keep with the StarCraft theme of my earlier post.

sallybrown Which is one reason why I'm not sure if they're actual (if foolhardy and obnoxious) Trump supporters or just trolls.
posted by sotonohito at 9:06 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


"You could easily argue that the president of the United States is a racist" - Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) on CNN just now

You could just as easily argue that the moon is made of cheese. And I have a feeling that if we wait just a little longer, one of the remaining Trump supporters is going to make exactly that argument.
posted by sour cream at 9:08 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Even the current "liberal" status quo is literally killing us, and Clinton is somewhat to Obama's right on a number of issues, particularly foreign policy (where the president can actually make a difference in our gridlocked system). But electing a woman president is also a huge milestone, and of course Trump would be a catastrophe. I'm happy that others can be positively excited for casting their general vote, but excitement or not, I'm ready to do my best -- not just voting, but activism. And once Clinton is elected we can get to work pushing her away from her natural inclinations towards centrism. Politics is work. Voting is the easy part.
posted by chortly at 9:12 AM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


I haven't seen this commentary from Glenn Greenwald posted yet, and I think it's relevant. Regardless of which candidate one does or doesn't prefer, yesterday's crowing announcement by the AP seemed, um, misguided at best.
posted by vverse23 at 9:12 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


and and there is no way Carter was getting a 2nd term

Total historical revisionism. As late as early October, Carter was leading in national opinion polls. It's amazing how much the Reaganites managed to rewrite the facts of Carter's presidency. Though inflation was high, real average wages grew faster, job creation was higher, unemployment lower, and by pretty much every measure the economy performed better during his term than it did under Reagan. It wasn't broadly that good again until the 90s. However, since the rich white men weren't outstripping the gains of the poor and minorities by 10-20x, the narrative was all about how the economy was shit. Funny how it was morning in America once those roles were reversed.

Hillary is largely subject to the same bullshit Carter is, but at least in her case there are concrete negative consequences a few of her husband's compromises had that can be pointed to as evidence. Never mind that in all but a couple of those cases the consequences weren't as obvious as we like to think they were now and, more importantly, that Hillary is not Bill. Far too many people act like they are one and the same when they are decidedly not. They share some similarities in political outlook, but also have many differences.
posted by wierdo at 9:15 AM on June 7, 2016 [38 favorites]


once Clinton is elected we can get to work pushing her away from her natural inclinations towards centrism. Politics is work. Voting is the easy part.

Maybe we can show her with voting in 2017, 2018 how committed we are to progressive policy. I don't know that her centrism is "natural" or just what she feels is viable in the current climate. And no I don't think Sanders' candidacy upended all of that.
posted by zutalors! at 9:16 AM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


Super delegates were created so that those people would not be required to run for delegate slots against their own constituents. While technically they can vote for whomever they like, in practice they vote for whomever has the majority of pledged delegates.

Super delegates do provide a safety valve for a couple of catastrophic scenarios, like the sudden death or indictment of the front runner, but can make the nomination process feel confusing.

Since super delegates are either elected officials or powerful party activists, they have very little incentive not to vote for the winner of the pledged delegate count. Possible reasons might include:

- Protest vote
- Pledged delegate count winner somehow has lost the popular vote
- Runner-up candidate is likely to run again, and super delegate wishes to build favor for the future

Where this causes friction is when a state's pledged delegates pick a losing candidate. Voters might feel that their super delegates should represent their state's choice, rather than the national one. The argument against that might be that super delegates can represent a move to unite behind the final nominee, or that the state's officials want to avoid retribution in the event that the nominee gets elected. A more cynical reading is that self-interested super delegates would always pick the winner in hopes of furthering their own careers.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 9:16 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


vverse23:
"I haven't seen this commentary from Glenn Greenwald posted yet, and I think it's relevant. Regardless of which candidate one does or doesn't prefer, yesterday's crowing announcement by the AP seemed, um, misguided at best."
It definitely fell into, "I'm not saying your wrong..." territory as far as timing goes.
posted by charred husk at 9:16 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


i'm leaving work early this evening and going to my polling place to cast my ballot for bernie and i'm excited about it. i think he has a shot at winning california, but i know the nomination is wildly unlikely at best. for me, as a millennial woman, the fact that someone even resembling a socialist candidate made it this far in the primary is amazing and gives me a bit of hope for the future.
posted by burgerrr at 9:16 AM on June 7, 2016 [18 favorites]


Even the current "liberal" status quo is literally killing us,

This general accusation of the entire status quo is surely the correct conclusion to draw from this news article about a surprise uptick in the death rate.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:17 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]




Even the current "liberal" status quo is literally killing us,

Tying the rise in the death rate to "liberal" [scare quotes yours] policies is somewhere between preposterously tenuous and deeply disingenuous.
posted by dersins at 9:19 AM on June 7, 2016 [37 favorites]


Just got back from voting. Great turnout at 9 AM: Two other people! Also, I got to "stick" it to the man by taking a sticker even though I already got one with my vote-by-mail ballot!
posted by clorox at 9:23 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clinton is to the left of Obama on a ton of issues.

Yes she's not necessarily the most progressive candidate out there but she isn't promising bullshit she can't deliver.
posted by vuron at 9:29 AM on June 7, 2016 [33 favorites]


Even though it doesn't matter, in several ways, because this is South Dakota, I voted for Hillary this morning in our primary. I will proudly vote for her again in November.

There is a small chance that Trump will become repugnant enough that South Dakota could go for Hillary. There's time enough, and opportunities abound.
posted by yesster at 9:29 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Total historical revisionism. As late as early October, Carter was leading in national opinion polls. It's amazing how much the Reaganites managed to rewrite the facts of Carter's presidency.

One historical fact that should always be kept in mind, though, is that so-called "evangelical" voters turned away from Carter, an born-again Christian whose life since holding office has included moving acts of service to the poor -- including helping to wipe out the parasitic guinea worm -- and voted for Reagan.

They'll vote for Trump, too, make no mistake about it.

Tying the rise in the death rate to "liberal" [scare quotes yours] policies is somewhere between preposterously tenuous and deeply disingenuous.

Without even having RTFA, it's bruisingly obvious that the several states have governors and legislators from both parties, roughly half of which can hardly be said to be "liberal."
posted by Gelatin at 9:33 AM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Forget parliamentary democracies, this election season is starting to make me envious of places like Turkmenistan.


I mean, yes, your votes are all automatically cast for Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, but at least there's transparency in the system.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:36 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


In previous races I think they've always given combined totals. But this year I only saw those combined totals after Iowa and New Hampshire. Bernie responded by pointing out (accurately) that those superdelegates didn't really vote until July and shouldn't be counted one way or the other yet, and news organizations mostly seemed to realize that he had a point, and reported superdelegates and pledged delegates separately after that point, at least the ones I watched/read.

So the funny thing is that it wasn't simply the Sanders campaign making this point, it was actually the (corrupt! evil! rigged! amirite?) DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz who repeatedly asked the media to stop reporting superdelegate counts, or at least not to combine them with pledged delegate counts precisely because that gave a misleading picture of the state of the race and could have potentially influenced voters.
posted by zachlipton at 9:46 AM on June 7, 2016 [18 favorites]


Forget parliamentary democracies, this election season is starting to make me envious of places like Turkmenistan.

Complexity does not equal opacity or corruption. The party primary system is messy and could be improved, but we've done a beautiful thing by nominating Clinton, and I don't think anyone living under repressive conditions would really appreciate the dry comparison.
posted by Think_Long at 9:47 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


[Several deleted; see all the notes above re: same old same old.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:52 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump/Berdimuhamedow 2016!
posted by kirkaracha at 10:00 AM on June 7, 2016


at least there's transparency in the system.

Am I missing something? Has the Democratic party changed its longstanding nomination process without telling anyone? Is the selection process being kept a secret from voters?
posted by duffell at 10:01 AM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


I started out supporting Hillary, because I didn't know about Bernie, and Hillary was "close enough."

Then I switched to supporting Bernie, because his politics align more closely to mine, and even though I didn't think he would win I thought he do a lot to shift the overton window.

Then I switched back to supporting Hillary, because the intensity of the attacks on her coming from Bernie supporters has been insane, and I don't for one second believe it has nothing to do with sexism. Especially when the attacks focus on her "arrogance." Even though I still preferred Bernie, I started defending her in public.

And as his campaign has dragged on I have (a) wished every day that it would be over so the Democrats could focus on stopping Trump instead of tearing each other apart, and (b) become more and more convinced of the importance of having a woman as president.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:01 AM on June 7, 2016 [57 favorites]


After reading the Brock Turner trial coverage, I have been thinking lately...imagine what it would (*knock on wood* WILL *knock on wood*) be like to have someone sitting in the Oval Office who knows what it feels like to be afraid walking alone at night, or to be hollered at from a passing car while walking down the street, or to be called "honey" in front of a client at work...
posted by sallybrown at 10:07 AM on June 7, 2016 [60 favorites]


OK, so Paul Ryan condemns Trump's remarks and right out of the playbook, Trump's spokesperson says Ryan is racist.

My question for Ryan--and everyone else who has endorsed Trump--is: are you withdrawing your endorsement? Because if you're not, you're endorsing Trump's racism.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:09 AM on June 7, 2016 [30 favorites]


This is the case in most of Canada.

CTRL+F "Nova Scotia".... hmmm, now why would you leave that out? Why is that the only province you left out? Could it be because, since 1993, we've had three Liberal governments, three Progressive Conservative governments, and an NDP government? That the last three elections have gone PC-NDP-Lib? That the seats have been split 145-122-106 during that time? Or 105-113-103 if you take out the big Lib win in 1993?

It's funny that the one province you happened to overlook is the one that completely blows your argument out of the water.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 10:09 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


sallybrown, I wish I could hug you for that comment. I'm a little teary right now just thinking about it.
posted by cooker girl at 10:09 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Even complaining that superdelegate positions might have unduly influenced voters is a weird thing to do.

Clinton won the support of superdelegates through her decades of effective work and overwhelming respect in the Democratic party, not by casting a hex on them. Superdelegates are people, and they're allowed to say who they support. It's not illegitimate for Clinton to have the support of people, nor for them to declare their support. It'd be like complaining that Al Gore had an unfair advantage in 2000 on account of being Vice President. Well, no shit, he earned the office of the VP, and that comes with a certain level of cachet.

If Sanders wanted a bunch of superdelegates in his column at the start of the race, he could have chosen to spend the last 20 years working as a key leader in the Democratic party instead of being a fun "independent" and only switching affiliation at the last minute so he could play in the big leagues. He didn't.

You can't have it both ways: A tabula rasa where Clinton's immense popularity and support in the Democratic party gains her literally zero advantage, to the point where high-profile people who support her aren't allowed to say that out loud, and a race where we can use her public statements from 20 years ago (when she was building that same support echoing what 95%+ of liberals were saying at the time) against her.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:11 AM on June 7, 2016 [47 favorites]


Trump has apparently decided that there's damn well going to be a GOP crackup even if he has to do it himself, I guess.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:11 AM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


are you withdrawing your endorsement? Because if you're not, you're endorsing Trump's racism.

As I saw on Twitter: outright racism is preferable to a centrist Democrat.
posted by suelac at 10:12 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


The thing that makes me tear up a little is thinking about the big, heavy purse my mom lugged around my whole childhood, filled with all manner of things (checkbook, Cheerios, hairbrushes, a soda, loose Kleenex that fuzzed up the whole thing, a pair of flats, those little tiny sticks of sugarless gum, etc). I don't know if Hillary is as much of a pack mule as my mom in that respect, but there's going to be a purse kicking around the Oval Office soon.
posted by sallybrown at 10:14 AM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


Question, and apologies if this had been covered already or if I'm way off in understanding things: Say Donald Trump decides for whatever reason he doesn't want to be the Republican nominee and drops out, what happens to his delegates? I assume they can't - money, logistics, time - go and have another round of primaries. Can he "transfer" them to pretty much anyone else? If he's selected a running mate, does his Veep get bumped up and inherit them? And so forth?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:14 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


You know who agrees with me on all the issues? Me.
I'm not getting elected so I have to compromise. That's the scourge of democracy and it's the reason democracy is better than having a dictator.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:14 AM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


Even complaining that superdelegate positions might have unduly influenced voters is a weird thing to do.

I'd say there's a difference between the optics of winning the "endorsement primary" and actually counting superdelegate declarations as part of the delegate count without stating specifically that they're unpledged and capable of changing. If the story is "Clinton has 800 delegates to SAanders' 20 after first primary", people are going to think "Well, fuck, it's over then."
posted by Etrigan at 10:16 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Idiocracy was a documentary.

Idiocracy is one of the most appallingly-bad movies to come out in my lifetime, and I say that as a guy who both respects Mike Judge's talents and his aims as a writer. It is such a spectacular failure of a satire that I intend to use it to teach future students what satire looks like when it fails.

Its failure is one of form completely not anticipating its own function. Idiocracy is a satire about future generations who are so attention-deficit, so incapable of grasping complex ideas, that they reduce all their thoughts to meme-level thoughts. Idiocracy portrays this by presenting its central concept—that idiots breed more than smarts do—in a meme-length video with catchy, bright graphics, and then by depicting its idiots by having them spout all manner of meme-length and meme-catchy phrases. Its hero is completely uninteresting, its plot is an afterthought, and the film as a whole fails to present anything remotely resembling intellectual thought.

The irony of Idiocracy, then, is that as a movie it embodies precisely the principle it's declaring and critiquing. But it fails to use that irony; if Judge realized what he was bringing into the world, he sure as shit dropped the ball on doing anything with it. Idiocracy is difficult to use as an argument in favor of finding a better human nature; it's great at using to drop context-free scorn on any aspect of society you dislike, and acting like you've made some kind of profound statement about the world. It's an enabler.

Other, better satires exist; In The Loop is a devastating critique of American and British politics (and Veep, while less pointed, is still pretty darn good), Four Lions will leave you with a pit in your stomach, and Ben Wheatley's High-Rise, out this year, is a critique of modern society that literally nauseated me. Those satires offer scene after scene, line after line, sequence after sequence, that could be used to critique politics, groupthink, society, human nature. But to insert them into a political discussion, you'd have to understand things like, oh, context, and how an idea maps onto some aspect of political territory. And doing that is... well, it's not hard. Let's be honest with ourselves. Doing that requires the sort of low-level asinine mental connections that we learn how to do at the age of three or so. But that's harder than quoting fucking Idiocracy, which requires you to memorize two or three phrases, some of which are equally valid for spouting "ironic" homophobia, and spit them out at random intervals, like a shit spigot watering a turd garden.

The goal of a conversation should be elevation: listening to people who disagree with you, coming to understand why they disagree with you, and trying your damnedest to articulate your thoughts and beliefs within the contexts of other participants' stated outlooks. With a couple of exceptions—such as "people are demanding an insane amount of emotional labor from, I dunno, women, to pick a random group of people, and those women are sick of saying the same goddamn thing over and over again to the same goddamn people"—this is how basically any conversation, whether it's about the Beyonce concert last night or the intricacies and ambiguities of the modern Leftist landscape, ought to operate. It's not even a matter of intellect—it's a matter of fucking listening to what people have to goddamn say and saying something back, the word back implying addressed to somebody else, who is here, who is speaking literally right now.

And, in that context, it's clear why memes of the Idiocracy variety are problematic. Memes reduce subjects to their lowest common denominators. They provide paths that lead away from complexity, away from ambiguity, away from hesitation or uncertainty or doubt. They steamroll over garden paths and replace them with a derivative landscape of asphalt that stinks in the heat. It has nothing to do with intelligence, which is why Idiocracy was flawed from the premise alone, and everything to do with context, empathy, and the capacity to include somebody else in your thoughts and words. (Could Idiocracy have provided us with a genuinely compelling plot about a smart person confronting idiots? I sort of think the film would've fallen apart at the seams had it tried. When you hear the writer of Four Lions talking about turning terrorists into slapstick, it's clear he spent a long time evolving his viewpoint on terrorists before writing that film; did Mike Judge have a similar evolutionary process?)

I love pop culture. I love quotable shit. I love black comedy and scorn. I see reasons to both love and despise Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I don't think either one is perfect. I voted idealistically in this election, but I voted knowing that the guy I voted for was going to lose, and may have changed by vote if I thought he had a chance. My conscience was eased by knowing I didn't have to look into my candidate more thoroughly because of that. I am genuinely interested in understanding what people think of this election, which is historic on about two dozen axes all at once, and which could lead our nation in so many wildly different directions that it fills me with awe, fascination, and terror all at once. I get the sense that a lot of people in these threads are magnetized by this election for similar reasons.

It is beyond frustrating that there are people in this discussion, and they exist all along the political spectrum, who are trying to turn it into a game of one-upsmanship—and I think that certain of their vantage points, their declared intentions w/r/t the primary and the general, are themselves forms of that one-upmanship, attempts to declare themselves inviolably right and the people who disagree with them inviolably wrong. I myself hold opinions here which could probably be interpreted that way, and do my best to avoid saying them the way that'd feel the viscerally satisfying to me, because I don't want to lead threads down that path myself. These trends are nothing new, but as time goes on and I get older and try harder to be less of a shit towards the people in my life, digital or otherwise, they frustrate me more and more, especially because most of the time we talk around them, instead of calling them for what they are and trying to have a conversation that's worth happening.

I believe my political stances are rooted in compassion and caring and genuinely wanting to make my country/the planet better and more humane, and that people who disagree with me in certain ways are buying into ideas that will (in my opinion) make the world decidedly uglier and meaner and worse. I also think that most people hold the beliefs that they do because they want something similar—I mean, why else give a shit about a political stance in the first place? So it frustrates me that people who ostensibly see the world the way I do let themselves turn ugly and mean, almost-but-not-quite as much as it genuinely delights me when I find people whose beliefs I hold to be wretched or vile, but are open to discussing, talking, and listening. Even when I leave those discussions wishing that I was more persuasive than I was. Again, sometimes you get frustrated and go "Fuck this shit!" and just literally can't deal with that kind of thing, but I also don't think that most of the people I've met that like to argue in bad faith have ever really hit that point. It's usually pretty apparent when they have. More often it's a combination of immaturity, pettiness, and arrogance—the kind of arrogance that involves thinking you know more than anybody else, that your experiences are more valid, that your thought processes are more logical and fly truer, and thus renders you far less likely to have thought things through than any of the people whose ambiguities you view as a sign of weakness. The blood in the water that you'll use to feast upon their spurious claims, to declare victory, to leave no man or woman standing—and whether or not it's because you're right or merely more exhausting doesn't ultimately matter, not in conversations such as this.

Anyway, that's why I'm not the biggest fan of Idiocracy as a work of satire.
posted by rorgy at 10:17 AM on June 7, 2016 [67 favorites]


It's funny that the one province you happened to overlook is the one that completely blows your argument out of the water.

The one province I didn't mention is the one where all three parties are vaguely indistinguishable from one another. The Nova Scotia NDP, Liberals and Tories are all the same bland centrist mealymouthed pile of blah and have been for fifteen years, which is almost exactly as long as NS has had three parties capable of contending for the leadership.

And even that's righting itself, as the Tories have been steadily diminishing in the popular vote for a decade now, and the familiar two-party split re-establishes itself with the Liberals and NDP bashing each other about the middle, because first past the post optimizes itself for two parties, and if three parties are all going to be bland centrist mealymouthed blah, it makes far more sense for there to be only two parties rather than three because the remaining two parties have a better chance of winning. This isn't even a political question: it's a mathematical one.

Also if you're arguing that Nova Scotia, the fourth-smallest province in the dominion, is proof of your theory when literally every other provincial government in Canada argues against it, well, I don't know what to say.
posted by mightygodking at 10:17 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Anyway, that's why I'm not the biggest fan of Idiocracy as a work of satire.

yeah but it was still a documentary tho
posted by tonycpsu at 10:18 AM on June 7, 2016 [18 favorites]


Say Donald Trump decides for whatever reason he doesn't want to be the Republican nominee and drops out, what happens to his delegates? (


It depends on whether he releases his delegates or not - but the VP is not actually chosen yet, and so can't move up until it's after the convention and he is selected.
posted by corb at 10:19 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean, all they really need to do is take actual things Trump says and sub in Camacho's face and name.

That wouldn't fly - to quote Cohen, "Comacho's not a racist"
posted by Itaxpica at 10:20 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hey, so, possibly dumb question from a New Jersey voter -- I didn't have time to vote this morning before work but plan on going tonight on my way home. However, I didn't receive any sample ballot in the mail like I usually get before elections. I did some googling and it seems that the voting location for my town hadn't changed, but, is this a sign that I might have been dropped from the rolls somehow? Is there anything special I should say/bring in case of problems? Or is it moot now?
posted by oh yeah! at 10:20 AM on June 7, 2016


OK, so Paul Ryan condemns Trump's remarks and right out of the playbook, Trump's spokesperson says Ryan is racist.

Oh god it gets worse:
"Speaker Ryan is wrong and Speaker Ryan has apparently switched positions and is supporting identity politics, which is racist," Trump supporter Jeffrey Lord, a member of the Reagan administration, said on CNN Tuesday when asked about Ryan's concerns.

"I am accusing anybody, anybody who believes in identity politics, which he apparently now does, of playing the race card," Lord said. "The Republican establishment is playing this. Senator McConnell is playing this. These people have run and hid and borrowed the Democratic agenda of playing the race card. It is wrong."
So first we're saying that identity politics, the force that brought us, among other greatest hits, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, racist. But beyond that, the Trump campaign, which Lord represents, is one massive appeal to identity politics. Every other word out of Trump's mouth is an appeal to boost white male voters and put down people of any other group. Therefore I think Lord just concluded that Trump is racist too.
posted by zachlipton at 10:20 AM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


oh yeah!, check here.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:22 AM on June 7, 2016


MetaFilter: Oh god it gets worse.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:22 AM on June 7, 2016 [32 favorites]


Hey, so, possibly dumb question from a New Jersey voter -- I didn't have time to vote this morning before work but plan on going tonight on my way home. However, I didn't receive any sample ballot in the mail like I usually get before elections. I did some googling and it seems that the voting location for my town hadn't changed, but, is this a sign that I might have been dropped from the rolls somehow? Is there anything special I should say/bring in case of problems? Or is it moot now?

Check to see if you're registered here. Bring photo id. If someone challenges you, you can sign an affadavit.
posted by zarq at 10:23 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


My question for Ryan--and everyone else who has endorsed Trump--is: are you withdrawing your endorsement? Because if you're not, you're endorsing Trump's racism.

Don't worry, Paul "Portrait of Courage™" Ryan wants to let you know that he doesn't actually think Trump's racist himself, just that one thing he said. And that's totes cool, right?
posted by zombieflanders at 10:26 AM on June 7, 2016


PolitiFact's files on Hillary Clinton (71% Half True, Mostly True, or True) and Donald Trump (76% Half False, False, or Pants on Fire).
posted by kirkaracha at 10:27 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


zombieflanders:
"Don't worry, Paul "Portrait of Courage™" Ryan wants to let you know that he doesn't actually think Trump's racist himself, just that one thing he said. And that's totes cool, right?"
Hey, he's been watching Jay Smooth videos!
posted by charred husk at 10:29 AM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


To understand Paul Ryan's position, remember two key facts about why Donald Trump is awesome, according to his supporters:
1. He speaks his mind. No filter at all. The man tells it like it is. You can believe him because he's so real.
2. He doesn't really believe the crazy shit he says. It's just a show; he's actually quite reasonable.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:31 AM on June 7, 2016 [28 favorites]


Thanks, zarq & roomthreeseventeen, it's showing me as registered in my town since 2001. (I'm still weirded out by never getting that usual mailing - not even any last-minute campaign robo-dials, but I guess the campaigns are focusing their money & time on more contested districts)
posted by oh yeah! at 10:33 AM on June 7, 2016


Donald Trump Hired a New Political Director and Forgot to Tell His Campaign
Donald Trump this week hired a new national political director and forgot to tell his campaign, so things are going great over there—thanks for asking.

His new hire, former lobbyist Jim Murphy, is certainly a boldface name on the list of people who could give a shit about your ethical quandaries. According to the Daily Beast, Murphy’s greatest hits include representing—more than one!—military juntas (including Myanmar and Azerbaijan), lobbying on behalf of big tobacco, and orchestrating a climate change denial campaign paid for by Exxon. Which is all to say, he’s a perfect fit for the Trump campaign. Or maybe not.

“Never heard of him,” Trump campaign press secretary Hope Hicks—who I’m fairly confident is not Donald Trump in a wig doing falsetto, though it wouldn’t exactly be out of character—told the New York Times in an email Sunday after the hire was announced.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:34 AM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


"I am accusing anybody, anybody who believes in identity politics, which he apparently now does, of playing the race card," Lord said.

A bit of translation here: "playing the race card" == "criticizing overt racism".
posted by Gelatin at 10:35 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ryan wants to let you know that he doesn't actually think Trump's racist himself, just that one thing he said. And that's totes cool, right?

Well, that was completely incoherent.
posted by zarq at 10:35 AM on June 7, 2016


...imagine what it would (*knock on wood* WILL *knock on wood*) be like to have someone sitting in the Oval Office who knows what it feels like to be afraid walking alone at night, or to be hollered at from a passing car while walking down the street, or to be called "honey" in front of a client at work...
posted by sallybrown at 1:07 PM on June 7


I can't help but believe that a lot of women in the UK felt the same way as things were leading up to the 1979 General Election.
posted by magstheaxe at 10:37 AM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Thanks, zarq & roomthreeseventeen, it's showing me as registered in my town since 2001. (I'm still weirded out by never getting that usual mailing - not even any last-minute campaign robo-dials, but I guess the campaigns are focusing their money & time on more contested districts)

No problem.

I'm in NY and didn't receive anything from the state regarding our status or our polling location. Not even a sample ballot. I assumed the DNC didn't bother?
posted by zarq at 10:37 AM on June 7, 2016


It's a good thing for Trump that white man isn't an "identity".
posted by tonycpsu at 10:37 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]




Trumpster lies like fucking crazy and his base cheers him on. A not insignificant percentage of pundits believe that perceptions trump reality so it really doesn't matter how big of lies he is telling if some percent of the population believes and is willing to repost it on social media.

Wasting lies on half truths is pointless now you might as well go for crazy as fuck lies like Hillary eats aborted fetuses for energy or that the Clintons have a crack team of ninjas that kill off opponents.

The distressing thing is that I used to think of the left as relying on facts to back up arguments but now they are increasingly promoting an agenda of woo and easily debunked lies to a gullible audience.

I am hopeful of a Clinton victory but man I have some doubts about some elements of the base. Especially when the left pulls out attacks on Clinton that seem cribbed from Breitbart or could easily be seen in old school antisemitic propaganda.
posted by vuron at 10:39 AM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


From the "Trump and the End of Everything" link.

A Trump presidency would not make America great again; it would make America ordinary, for the first time.


Collective eye-rolling from people in other countries.

Also, the author seems to have forgotten about the existence of Andrew Jackson.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 10:42 AM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


It's a good thing for Trump that white man isn't an "identity".

Exactly. Because with Trump's spokeswoman's comment today that Trump's sister could be biased as a female judge, it is clear that the only unbiased, acceptable identity is straight white man.
posted by zachlipton at 10:43 AM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]




I can't believe I'm now in the position of rooting for the increasingly unlikely prospect of Trump's campaign keeping its shit together for just a few more weeks, but I am. If we have to be subjected to this absolute garbage fire of a Republican nomination process, the least the Trump campaign could do is pull the entire party down into the trash flames along with it. Maybe something halfway decent can arise from the ashes. *hollow laughter* j/k our republic is saddled with this horror show of a major political party for the rest of eternity I guess

But seriously, what the fuck is going on over there at Trump HQ? How long before one or more of Trump's high up campaign staff just totally snaps? Because that...that doesn't look like a good work environment.
posted by yasaman at 10:47 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]




Reporters being threatened. Civility seems lost. I am so discouraged.

Amy Chozick ‏@amychozick 38m38 minutes ago
I won't be answering calls from unknown numbers today, after third call from Bernie supporters telling me they'd hunt me down in the streets

posted by Sophie1 at 10:47 AM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


Trump and the End of Everything
"Even if he is not elected, Trump has wrought real damage. The world is a more dangerous place when the United States can no longer be counted on to act as the adult in the room, and Trump’s wild statements about defaulting on our debt and the proliferation (and use) of nuclear weapons may come to nothing (fingers crossed here), but other countries now have to assess their interests, security concerns, and foreign policies to account for the real possibility that U.S. power will be placed in the hands of a spoiled, petulant, impulsive man-child."
If the world is only just now realizing that one of the two major parties in this country are self-destructive then they haven't been paying close attention. Since the 90's, Republicans have given us ignorance, extensive fearmongering, government shutdowns, a war on science, a war on sexuality, a war on intellect, a war on women, a multi-pronged war on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, a war on Muslims, a war on African Americans and Latinos, fundamentalism substituting for sanity, obstructionism in place of governance, a dangerously stupid debt ceiling crisis, a war started for non-existent weapons of mass destruction.... and on and on and on...

But sure, let's blame Trump and pretend they didn't do everything in their power to create an end goal where his candidacy and Presidency are the grand prize.
posted by zarq at 10:49 AM on June 7, 2016 [34 favorites]


I voted for Bernie in my state's primary, but his grouchy unwillingness to concede the nomination despite the fact that Clinton has three million more votes, is winning handily from every angle, and has been the obviously-inevitable winner for months now is really starting to sour me on him. He needs to get behind Clinton or at least get out of the fucking way so that the Democratic party can consolidate and focus its energies on defeating Trump.

Bernie and his die-hard supporters represent a significant bloc of the Democratic electorate, and he needs to free them up because this election is fucking scary and a Trump president would be a catastrophe. I appreciate his economic ideals and would gladly have backed him for president, but his time is over and he's putting the whole country in jeopardy by actively hindering the process of consolidation.

We had a historically fragmented Republican party that we could have been ripping to shreds over the last month or so, but now they seem to have made their peace at least temporarily and are largely behind Trump at this point because they were given a month's head start. Bernie, you're fucking it up at this point. Get out of the way before you make things any worse!
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:50 AM on June 7, 2016 [30 favorites]


Yup, a lot of female political journalists are reporting threats and harassment. What is wrong with people?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:51 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


If the world is only just now realizing that one of the two major parties in this country are self-destructive then they haven't been paying close attention. Since the 90's, Republicans have given us ignorance, extensive fearmongering, government shutdowns, a war on science, a war on sexuality, a war on intellect, a war on women, a multi-pronged war on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, a war on Muslims, a war on African Americans and Latinos, fundamentalism substituting for sanity, obstructionism in place of governance, a dangerously stupid debt ceiling crisis, a war started for non-existent weapons of mass destruction.... and on and on and on...

In that vein, here's Charles Pierce: These Republicans Are Outraged By Trump. Also, They're Voting for Him.
"I'm just not going to talk about Donald Trump," Cornyn said during his first gaggle with Hill reporters. "I'm not going to comment about everything he says and doesn't say. We'd never get anything done around here. … If it's the only thing you guys ask about, yes, it does affect our ability to talk policy." The second time he was asked about Trump, Cornyn said: "You guys may not be able to stop talking about Donald Trump. But I can." Finally, in his third discussion with the media, reporters asked him about Internet privacy and Zika funding—a discussion Cornyn seemed to find refreshing in a Trump-obsessed Washington.
It is here where we point out that Republicans have been holding up Zika funding in the Congress because the Republicans in the House of Representatives are completely insane, and beyond anyone's control, and perfectly representative of the forces that produced the presidential nominee who makes Burr and Cornyn and the rest of them so uncomfortable.

For their part, of course, these same jamokes in the upper chamber are keeping the Supreme Court playing shorthanded because they don't like the twice-elected president of the United States and are content to hold one seat on the bench open to be filled by the guy about whom they'd rather not talk.

Incoherence as a strategy does not seem like a plan.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:53 AM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


What is wrong with people?

Rampant abhorrent sexism that is always egregiously downplayed? That's my guess.
posted by zutalors! at 10:54 AM on June 7, 2016 [19 favorites]


I can't help but believe that a lot of women in the UK felt the same way as things were leading up to the 1979 General Election.

Because "has a vagina" = "has a vagina," am i rite fellas?! Really, it's preposterous to view Clinton as some sort of Thatcherite, unless you're unable to see beyond their reproductive organs.
posted by sallybrown at 10:57 AM on June 7, 2016 [48 favorites]


Trump on American Exceptionalism: "I don't think it's a very nice term. We're exceptional; you're not...I don't want to say, 'We're exceptional. We’re more exceptional.' Because essentially we're saying we're more outstanding than you."
posted by kirkaracha at 10:57 AM on June 7, 2016


And Judge Sotomayor might actually show empathy. Empathy!
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:59 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Fun fact: The house Republicans' "Zika bill" would provide no funding for disease fighting at all, but WOULD stop the EPA from regulating pesticides that get sprayed into lakes, rivers, wetlands, etc. Priorities!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:01 AM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]



I can't help but believe that a lot of women in the UK felt the same way as things were leading up to the 1979 General Election.


This comparison would make a lot more sense if, say, Carly Fiorina were the current candidate...
posted by bardophile at 11:02 AM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


FAIR is not happy with the AP's decision.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 11:03 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I can't help but believe that a lot of women in the UK felt the same way as things were leading up to the 1979 General Election.

... what's the point of this statement?

Clinton and Thatcher aren't equivalent political choices; Clinton is more similar to Sanders. And the fact that Thatcher had terrible politics doesn't take away from the fact that we need more women in power.

TBH, I find your statement condescending -- it's as if you believe caring about having women in power means we don't care about an individual woman's politics, and are blind to the consequences of voting for someone we don't agree with.

And I'd also suggest that assuming large numbers of women voted for Thatcher solely because she's a woman would be sexist as well, because women have political opinions that are not invalidated or irrelevant if we care about representation. Sadly, a hell of a lot of people believed in Thatcher's politics--men and women. Thatcher did not win because women voted her in just because they wanted to see a woman in the position.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:05 AM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]


Can someone please point me to a good writeup of the Clinton email situation (and a coherent explanation of how unlikely an indictment is) for the Bernie-or-Busters on my Facebook feed?
posted by stolyarova at 11:05 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


So Trump says something racist, Paul Ryan tells him to stop saying racist things and Trump responds by calling Ryan a racist?! I don't know whether to laugh, clutch my pearls, or grab the bourbon. This is the most enthralling shit-show I've ever watched.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:06 AM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


I can't help but believe that a lot of women in the UK felt the same way as things were leading up to the 1979 General Election.

I don't think Clinton is remotely like Thatcher, but I do find it depressing that the UK hasn't had a woman prime minister since her.

In fact, if you look at the list of countries who have elected women to their highest government position, many have elected only one.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:06 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


This comparison would make a lot more sense if, say, Carly Fiorina were the current candidate...

Even then, it's ridiculous to compare across countries like this. It's essentially saying "oh my we let a girl in charge of something before and look how that turned out!" Not only does it blame gender, it lets her disgusting political views off the hook completely. A male Thatcher would have harmed England in just the same way the female one did.

(Just one of the many ways sexism harms us, it obviously runs roughshod over logic and reasoning abilities)
posted by sallybrown at 11:06 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


A number that doesn't take into account any of the states that decided by caucus, which Sanders won, and therefore is not particularly useful

Given that two caucus states (NE, WA) also had primary votes that had higher turnout and saw Sanders lose, I don't think your argument holds the water you think it does.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:07 AM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


...despite the fact that Clinton has three million more votes...

A number that doesn't take into account any of the states that decided by caucus, which Sanders won, and therefore is not particularly useful.


As 538 pointed out, the total voters in the caucuses is about 1.1 million. Even if Sanders had won 100% of those voters, he would still be a couple million behind. This line about caucuses being unfair to Sanders has been thoroughly debunked.
posted by JackFlash at 11:10 AM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


Can someone please point me to a good writeup of the Clinton email situation

Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server

Past cases suggest Hillary won’t be indicted
posted by chris24 at 11:13 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


i think we could let people be excited about a female nominee without going BUT THATCHER at them? I mean really, it didn't need that kind of a "response."
posted by zutalors! at 11:14 AM on June 7, 2016 [20 favorites]


[A few deleted. Let's call the Thatcher thing and the caucus-vs-primary thing done; we can actually discuss things without having repetitive "your candidate is terrible" fights.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:15 AM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Once President Trump has ratfucked the country, dismantled the EPA, repealed abortion and marriage rights, curbed voting rights, and screwed over minorities and the working poor, THAT'S when the American people will finally rise up and usher in the gleaming liberal utopia that there is literally no historical precedent for in human history!
posted by Senor Cardgage at 11:16 AM on June 7, 2016 [22 favorites]


And regarding the recent State Department report...

State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her
posted by chris24 at 11:17 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Anyway, that's why I'm not the biggest fan of Idiocracy as a work of satire.

I get that, but we're in a post-South Park and post-Daily Show kinda world now to have standards in satire, sadly. Statires.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:17 AM on June 7, 2016


Thank you, chris24.
posted by stolyarova at 11:19 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


FAIR is not happy with the AP's decision.

I mean, nobody complained when everyone announced that Trump was the presumptive nominee (ok, we complained a lot, but about the result, not about the announcement). Is the only problem here the timing? Would it have been ok if the AP announced this a week ago instead of the night before today's primaries? Because Sanders was just as unlikely to be the nominee last week as he was this morning.
posted by zachlipton at 11:22 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


There is no “Trump Bump” in the polls — just a growing lead for the Democrats - "For these reasons, it is good not to put too much stock in these head-to-head polls. This is why we’ve done something different in our polling.

We have been fielding just one question since the start of the year: Who are you most likely to vote for in the upcoming presidential election? Respondents choose among these answers: definitely Republican candidate, likely Republican candidate, likely Democratic candidate, definitely Democratic candidate, or not voting. This question focuses on the party, rather than the individual candidate, because we believe the question will more accurately reflect voting in November than does polling in the spring. "
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:22 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Senor Cardgage:
"Once President Trump has ratfucked the country, dismantled the EPA, repealed abortion and marriage rights, curbed voting rights, and screwed over minorities and the working poor, THAT'S when the American people will finally rise up and usher in the gleaming liberal utopia that there is literally no historical precedent for in human history!"
Sadly that's probably not too far off - too often humanity has to get down in the shit before we begin to really shovel it. Too bad we'll taking generations to get back to where we were instead of moving forward.
posted by charred husk at 11:22 AM on June 7, 2016


Why Donald Trump won't stop talking about Judge Curiel - "Trump is ranting about Curiel's bias not because doing so is part of any kind of rational political strategy, but because he is going to lose the case. And if he loses, it must be somebody else's fault."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:24 AM on June 7, 2016 [19 favorites]




It's also an attempt to get Judge Curiel to second-guess any rulings that go against Trump. When your integrity is questioned like that (even by Trump) it makes you a little more cautious.
posted by sallybrown at 11:26 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean, nobody complained when everyone announced that Trump was the presumptive nominee

That happened because every other viable candidate had dropped out. It was a little bit before Trump had actually reached the delegate threshold.
posted by Etrigan at 11:29 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


U.S. Senate Republican leader McConnell says it's time for Trump to stop attacking various minority groups

So McConnell was ok with it before, but now it's time to stop? There's an actual time in the election season calendar when it becomes not ok to attack minority groups? What a joke.
posted by zachlipton at 11:31 AM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


Trump is attacking Curiel because he will lose the Trump U case bad and he probably wants conservatives to pay his legal fees because they feel like he got screwed by a biased judge.

Hopefully the civil findings of fact can result in a criminal case but in the meantime I will just be happy if the civil penalties result in yet another bankruptcy
posted by vuron at 11:34 AM on June 7, 2016


Ok but to be fair, Trump is attacking a powerful American man now, and that kind of thing is just not permitted.

(Seriously every time someone is like "this fine Judge is FROM INDIANA how dare Trump" I just...can't)
posted by sallybrown at 11:35 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Actually I kinda hope Trump keeps up the attacks on women and minority groups. The last thing we need is for him to morph into a more thoughtful, presidential persona—which I totally believe he could do, because the man is a talented sociopath who will act however he thinks he needs to act to get what he wants. The GOP establishment is already pressuring him to do this, and he very well might.

The media would gobble that shit up like the parasiic power-fellating sycophants that they are, and the public's collective memory is similar to that of a three-day-old kitten, so he could easily scoop up the mainstream GOP electorate while hanging onto his extremely loyal base of openly proto-fascist bigots. Then he would be a truly dangerous opponent for Clinton, who is not a very strong candidate in absolute terms, and who is only looking like the favorite because Trump's numbers are so terrible.

This is the scenario that keeps me up at night right now.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:35 AM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


Apparently the time to stop attacking minorities is when it looks like you are going to lose your job as Senate majority leader if not your job as Senator for the turtle nation.
posted by vuron at 11:36 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Actually I kinda hope Trump keeps up the attacks on women and minority groups.

The problem with that, of course, is that people are going to get hurt or killed before the election if he continues to do so.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:37 AM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


I was listening to Dan Savage this morning, and in his political intro he voiced concern that Trump is pulling a "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" move with Judge Curiel.
I have to say I hadn't considered that possibility. I guess somehow I remain an optimist despite this election's attempts to break me.

Is he the only one worried about this, or have I missed some insightful commentary or reporting? Can I stay in my mostly-sunny little corner?
posted by Superplin at 11:39 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Remember the 3500 other civil cases against Trump. He hasn't gotten around to attacking all those judges yet but this one had an easy excuse in Trump's tiny mind. And as I said, a major motivation for running for President for him is getting the power to make all these legal problems go away (which probably wouldn't work, but he DOES have a tiny mind).
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:41 AM on June 7, 2016


The problem with that, of course, is that people are going to get hurt or killed before the election if he continues to do so.

Yeah, regardless of whether it's politically useful to defeat him, I wish he'd stop. I don't think he will, because his base loves it, but that needs to be entirely on him.

Besides, as Clinton showed in her awesome foreign policy speech, the Democrats don't need to exploit against Trump's racism and sexism to defeat him. She can just point out what a braying jackass he is, and when Trump denies it -- notwithstanding that doing so implicitly accepts her criticism -- she can just release another carefully prepared documentation video.

Clinton can Batman Gambit her way to the White House.
posted by Gelatin at 11:42 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Superplin:
"I was listening to Dan Savage this morning, and in his political intro he voiced concern that Trump is pulling a "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" move."
That may be, but getting rid of him doesn't have to mean assassination if that's what you're worried about. At least not killing assassination, just character assassination. I'm sure people will begin trying to dig up the slightest bullshit thing that might make the judge look biased.

Still shitty, shitty, shitty.
posted by charred husk at 11:42 AM on June 7, 2016


I still think I'd prefer an obvious tyrant who can be easily defeated over a secret tyrant who might actually win. The version of Trump we've been seeing in the primaries is clearly the real Trump—his entire life history, much of which is public record, bears this out. At best we would be electing the presidential equivalent of an abusive partner. We need to keep this shit out in the open so that people can't support him while also pretending that they don't support fascism and bigotry, and so that the necessity of resisting him every inch of the way remains clear even to people who aren't really paying attention. If protests and riots are what it takes, I sincerely believe that would still be better than President Trump.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:42 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


And HEEEEEEERE's an early frontrunner for "how to tie your moderate GOP Senate candidate to Trump." Kirk makes it easy because he's always saying stupid-ass things in front of reporters, but if we're coming out of the gate with campaign material this ugly, imagine how GOP Congresscritters will be roasted over the fires of Trump as we get closer to November!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:43 AM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


I wonder if things before November will ever get so bad that McConnell will decide it's time to have a SC nomination hearing.
posted by rewil at 11:44 AM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]





Actually I kinda hope Trump keeps up the attacks on women and minority groups.


are you a woman or a minority or possibly even both?
posted by zutalors! at 11:45 AM on June 7, 2016 [27 favorites]


A senior member of the Iowa state senate has left the Republican party over Trump's racism. I think that's a matter of principle, rather than expedience, but interesting anyway.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:45 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


This is the scenario that keeps me up at night right now.

You know this reads like really privileged white male peacocking, right? "I hope Trump persists in his vicious rhetorical attacks against women and minorities (even though they may result in real, physical attacks on those same people) so that the tiny little minds of other lesser Americans are not swayed by his lies of moderation"?

To be clear I don't mean to escalate in the same rhetorical vein. It's just that corb called people out for similar statements in the previous thread, and she had a good point. I hope we as a nation can find a way to reduce Trump's immediate, ongoing harms and also still defeat him in the general election.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:48 AM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


McConnell is probably not going to get a more centrist nominee than Garland under Clinton and if they lose the senate they might get a more liberal jurist.

My guess is that they do a quick confirmation in November and December to avoid having to deal with this next year.
posted by vuron at 11:48 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


And remember, maybe the BIGGEST MOST BLATANT LIE Trump makes in his campaign is "I am a Winner; I always Win". FOUR BANKRUPTCIES, LOSER.

And I become mildly more optimistic that his followers aren't going to turn to violence, as he will either be forced out (and remember how important his choice of running mate is) between the convention and the election, or lose so badly that his followers will just fall into depression.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:49 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


vuron, I almost hope you're wrong and they keep stonewalling, or Garland withdraws once Clinton wins. Just as a way for her to nominate someone of her own choosing right off the bat.
posted by sotonohito at 11:50 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


I wonder if things before November will ever get so bad that McConnell will decide it's time to have a SC nomination hearing.

If he did, it'd be a sure sign he's throwing in the towel, but the Republican base would howl for blood about Republicans "allowing another liberal justice on the Supreme Court" (which would mean the deathknell for any number of cherished conservative principles). Especially since the so-called "liberal media" has basically allowed McConnell to get away with nigh-unprecedented obstructionism so far.

What I wonder is whether, having gotten away with it so far, McConnell (assuming the Republicans manage to hang onto the Senate) doesn't just double down and refuse to consider any Clinton nominee either.

I doubt it'll come to that, though; if Clinton wins over Trump, I'd expect the Democrats to take the Senate as well. In that case McConnell may make noises about "the American people having spoken" and allow Garland to be confirmed in the lame duck session, on the ground that he'd be better than a younger, more liberal Clinton appointee.

Still, given the take-no-prisoners attitude of the Tea Party crowd, and the fact that their corporate backers would stand to lose considerably under a more liberal SCOTUS, it might not yet be enough to save McConnell's next re-election bid.
posted by Gelatin at 11:50 AM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I mean, nobody complained when everyone announced that Trump was the presumptive nominee

The key problem with the AP declaration was its reliance on anonymity. It's fine if the AP wants to call up all the undeclared superdelegates and can get them on the record, but an anonymous endorsement is pure garbage. There is nothing to hold those superdelegates to their word. The count is untrustworthy.

This is just as bad as "unnamed government official says" in news articles. This allows sources to lie with impunity.
posted by JackFlash at 11:52 AM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


vuron, I almost hope you're wrong and they keep stonewalling, or Garland withdraws once Clinton wins. Just as a way for her to nominate someone of her own choosing right off the bat.

Garland seems to have accepted his role as sacrificial lamb, and it'd be a lot to ask, but I'd hope he'd step aside in favor of another Obama pick. It isn't right at all that a partisan Senate denied Obama his Constitutional right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

I have no doubt Clinton would get her own opportunities to make appointments to the Court.
posted by Gelatin at 11:53 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Remember the 3500 other civil cases against Trump. He hasn't gotten around to attacking all those judges yet but this one had an easy excuse in Trump's tiny mind.

I think it's also his thin skin and bruised ego. Remember, Romney's attack was what made it an issue.
posted by peeedro at 11:56 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Republican base would howl for blood about Republicans "allowing another liberal justice on the Supreme Court

Would they? I haven't seen any evidence that the base itself cares very much about this nomination. It seems localized to the Congress Republicans.
posted by zutalors! at 11:57 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wonder if things before November will ever get so bad that McConnell will decide it's time to have a SC nomination hearing.

No. That's the main reason Republican "leaders" feel compelled to stick with Trump to the end. They've enjoyed the benefit of the 5-4 Republican Supreme Court for 35 years, they know the value of always have the trump card, so to speak. They also know that they're not likely to fully enact their 1% and anti-citizen regressive agenda without having the Court. It's not an understatement to say the primary goal of the Republican movement since Reagan has been to control the Court entirely. They have worked tirelessly to get that last piece that would let them go full freak flag and overturn every Democratic law passed since FDR, but have been thwarted time and again by Souter and Kennedy not quite being Clarence Thomas, Bush getting to replace only reliable Republican Justices, and then Obama's two elections.

The one thing they can never, never, ever, ever do is let their sworn enemies the Democrats have a fifth vote of their own. They could live with Obama's first two appointments as maintaining the status quo, but they'll never confirm another Obama appointment, and unless the Democrats also regain the Senate, I don't think they will confirm a Hilary pick either. At that point it will have been 9+ months, they'll have an argument that 8 SCOTUS Justices is working just fine, maybe we should make it a permanent state.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:58 AM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


Clinton is free to nominate Zombie Scalia otherwise she is going to be protested as trying to pack the bench with liberals.

In fact if another judge dies or retires I halfway expect Republicans to suggest shrinking the court to 7 justices.
posted by vuron at 11:58 AM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's been said before but please Hillary nominate Obama for Scalia's seat. Some conservative heads would literally explode.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


Obama doesn't want to be a justice.
posted by zutalors! at 12:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I haven't seen any evidence that the base itself cares very much about this nomination.

It depends on what you mean by "base." As T.D. Strange noted above, which way the SCOTUS goes matters very much to the Republican agenda, and to the wealthiest 1% on whose behalf Republicans work. A Court that's more liberal by one justice can overturn Citizens United, restore the Voting Rights act, uphold the EPA's jurisdiction over carbon emissions and any number of other decisions that means serious money to numerous corporate and wealthy interests -- not to mention safeguarding abortion, LGBT rights, and access to contraceptives.

One of the reasons the Republican Party has been working ever more obviously for the wealthy and corporations is that they back conservative primary challenges when their pet congresscritters step out of line. If McConnell doesn't deliver, the Republican Party's financial backers can at least replace him with a more fanatical ideologue.
posted by Gelatin at 12:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


In fact if another judge dies or retires I halfway expect Republicans to suggest shrinking the court to 7 justices.

This will not happen if Thomas has a coronary next or Kennedy retires. If anything Republicans are going to argue for an age limit of 85 on SCOTUS justices.
posted by Talez at 12:09 PM on June 7, 2016


Obama doesn't want to be a justice.

Cite please? I agree that he'd be awesome as one, and he was after all a professor of Constitutional law.
posted by Gelatin at 12:10 PM on June 7, 2016


It's been said before but please Hillary nominate Obama for Scalia's seat. Some conservative heads would literally explode.

Obama did say he was planning to stay in DC after his presidency. I mean, the stated reason was so that his kinds could finish high school, but, well....
posted by dersins at 12:10 PM on June 7, 2016


Obama doesn't want to be a justice.

Also, wouldn't he have to recuse himself from a fair number of cases?
posted by bardophile at 12:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]




Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person [Republicans will] run in 2020, given the trend.
Ramsey Bolton, obviously.
posted by msalt at 12:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


Senator Corker, mentioned a lot as a VP possibility for Trump, refused to answer three times on Morning Joe this a.m. whether Trump was fit to be president.
posted by chris24 at 12:13 PM on June 7, 2016


Obama doesn't want to be a justice

Barack Obama, that is.
posted by Etrigan at 12:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [22 favorites]


idiocracy portrays this by presenting its central concept—that idiots breed more than smarts do—in a meme-length video with catchy, bright graphics, and then by depicting its idiots by having them spout all manner of meme-length and meme-catchy phrases. Its hero is completely uninteresting, its plot is an afterthought, and the film as a whole fails to present anything remotely resembling intellectual thought.

THATSTHEJOKE.JPG
posted by Cookiebastard at 12:15 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


if Trump wins, there's a 90% chance that his presidency will be such a disaster that, if there the USA is still an electoral democracy, (indeed, if the world is still inhabited by non-radioactive mutants) in 2020, the GOP will likely never hold the office of president for the the lifetime of every living millenial.
You're assuming a fair playing field, which Republicans have demonstrated a commitment to ending.

Over the last 30 years, they have gone all in on blatant gerrymandering, stacked the Supreme Court with partisan justices who literally handed the presidency to George W. Bush while declaring that the decision could not be used as a precedent, had same court issue ridiculous decisions blocking essentially all limits on campaign donations or even disclosure of them, and passed a series of voter suppression laws after said Supreme Court thrown out the core of the Voting Rights Act.

No offense intended, but thinking that "the bad results will make everyone vote against them" is dangerously naive.
posted by msalt at 12:19 PM on June 7, 2016 [20 favorites]


Would they? I haven't seen any evidence that the base itself cares very much about this nomination. It seems localized to the Congress Republicans.

My father is more "rank and file" than "base,"(he votes Republican but he's not super fired up or active or anything) Republican, but the Supreme Court is the one thing that he's said might drive him to vote for Trump. He turned out in the North Carolina primary for Ted Cruz, but said he really preferred Kasich. He hates Trump and seemingly agrees that he'd be a crackpot who is bad for the country, but is on the fence about staying home because he doesn't want Hillary getting to appoint someone to the Supreme Court. I have no clue how many people are thinking that way, but he's one.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:21 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


I still believe that Cruz has been promised aid in being the nominee in 2020, judging by how much Ken Cuchinelli is pushing "no no don't steal the election from Trump guys, just Make Us Heard! You don't want to Hurt Cruz's Chances Later!"

The Supreme Court thing is the only thing picking off our #nevertrumpers, sadly.
posted by corb at 12:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


doesn't want Hillary getting to appoint someone to the Supreme Court. I have no clue how many people are thinking that way, but he's one.

to be clear, by "This nomination" I meant the Garland one.
posted by zutalors! at 12:25 PM on June 7, 2016


Kinda makes you wonder what kind of person they'll run in 2020, given the trend.

Marshmallow Head Stick Figure 2020!
posted by krinklyfig at 12:27 PM on June 7, 2016


pig's head on a stake covered in flies 2020
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [27 favorites]


Bernie and his die-hard supporters represent a significant bloc of the Democratic electorate, and he needs to free them up because this election is fucking scary and a Trump president would be a catastrophe. I appreciate his economic ideals and would gladly have backed him for president, but his time is over and he's putting the whole country in jeopardy by actively hindering the process of consolidation.

The most terrifying thing to me is the number of young progressives i know who simply wont vote or will write someone in if he does drop out. I fight with them almost every goddamn day, but they flat out refuse to buckle on this going "well Trump and Clinton are awful too for different reasons i refuse to be pushed into a box!".

Some of these people are trans, or POC. I... don't get it. It always falls back to "they WANT you to think those are you only two options, they forget not participating is a vote too!".

Not just him stepping down, but his supporters stepping down and talking their friends down is going to be a big thing here. The "fuck the system" from people who aren't nihilistic burn-the-world-down accelerationist knobs who would switch to Trump just to stir the pot is going to be a big thing here.

And to be clear, this isn't like one or two people. This is probably close to ten i've talked to offline, and 10-20 on facebook and such.

I suspect some will back down when they realize Trump really could win, because the general consensus seems to be that he never could, and they don't want to cast a vote on principal out of general disgust. None of them are "i'm moving out of the country" types because they couldn't.
posted by emptythought at 12:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


It's been said before but please Hillary nominate Obama for Scalia's seat. Some conservative heads would literally explode.

An Eric Holder nomination would fill this role perfectly.
posted by chaoticgood at 12:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Apparently being a Supreme Court Justice is kind of deathly boring, and Obama strikes me as the type of dude who would be intent on actually enjoying his retirement.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:36 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


McConnell is probably not going to get a more centrist nominee than Garland under Clinton and if they lose the senate they might get a more liberal jurist....My guess is that they do a quick confirmation in November and December to avoid having to deal with this next year.

If for no reason other than to keep the country saner in the future, if it gets that far Garland and/or Obama should withdraw the nomination on Nov 1 and replace it with someone as liberal as possible. You republicans in the Senate want to confirm a perfectly reasonable nominee? At least *pretend* to be statesmen instead of skin-covered mucous-minions of some dark power, and take the compromise offered you.

I'd like to believe there's sliver of a chance that once the primaries are completely settled and nobody has to fear a challenge from increasing portion of the party that's totally unhinged, Senate Republicans may walk back their recalcitrance. That would be evidence that McConnell and co are merely tough operators instead of unalloyed enemies of anything good.
posted by wildblueyonder at 12:36 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


The idea that the country would tolerate four years of eight justices seems kind of bonkers on the face. All excuses go out the window once the election happens, because the Rs have what they wanted. The cover is entirely blown, and everyone is still mad because of Trump's awfulness.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:36 PM on June 7, 2016


Justice Holder...that would be perfection.

Obama has certainly said he doesn't want it, but it would be difficult to find a lawyer (especially a Constitutional law prof) who wouldn't give anything for that job. It's the dream. (As much as I love Obama, I would prefer a justice with less...expansive views on extrajudicial killing by drone.)
posted by sallybrown at 12:36 PM on June 7, 2016


Sadly that's probably not too far off - too often humanity has to get down in the shit before we begin to really shovel it. Too bad we'll taking generations to get back to where we were instead of moving forward.
posted by charred husk at 11:22 AM on June 7 [+] [!]


Eponytragical...
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 12:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm so tired of hearing from fellow people of color, many of them women, that there is little difference between Clinton and Trump. People who I previously thought to have decent, even exceptional, critical thinking skills. Guess I've learned something about my ability to assess other people's thinking skills...
posted by bardophile at 12:38 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


Nominating someone from the previous administration seems like a punk move. Less inbreeding, more diversity.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


To be clear, I'm referring to people I'm hearing from not in this thread, but rather on Facebook and in real life.
posted by bardophile at 12:40 PM on June 7, 2016


(or, more generally: less rockstar politics, more boring politics)
posted by Going To Maine at 12:41 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


> Looks like Florida AG Pam Bondi may have solicited and recieved contributions from Trump before their investigation

So, How Many People Have Sold Themselves Out to Trump?
It looks as though Florida's going to be a target-rich environment for anyone looking for influential people who sold themselves out to He, Trump at one point or another, never dreaming that he would be the presidential nominee. He's like all those pet pythons with whom Floridians got bored and then turned loose in the Everglades. He is the ultimate invasive species.
posted by homunculus at 12:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Al Gore would be a crystalline-perfect Supreme Court nominee.
posted by yesster at 12:43 PM on June 7, 2016


Al Gore would be a crystalline-perfect Supreme Court nominee.

He's a bit old for it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:46 PM on June 7, 2016


> Al Gore would be a crystalline-perfect Supreme Court nominee.

I was holding out for the 90's nostalgia Clinton-Gore presidential ticket. He's still eligible, even though he's been elected President once.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:47 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


I don't know whether to laugh, clutch my pearls, or grab the bourbon

trade the pearls for more bourbon just in case
posted by poffin boffin at 12:47 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


Guess I've learned something about my ability to assess other people's thinking skills...

I am absolutely not one of those people and will vote for Clinton and all that, but I find these sorts of statements an awful part of this election. You don't have to question people's mental abilities just because they disagree with you. It seems like soooo many would rather build up their own egos (because of course people think their own opinions are the correct ones) rather than respect that not everyone agrees on things and that's OK.
posted by downtohisturtles at 12:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


And if you're in San Francisco (or anywhere similar), leave yourself plenty of time to get through the zillion-page ballot.

In case anyone's dreading the drudgery of voting, just a heads-up that the SF ballot is literally two pages, and a couple of the races (Kamala Harris vs. Loretta Sanchez for U.S. Senate, Jane Kim vs. Scott Wiener for State Senate Dist. 11) are basically dry-runs for November.

ALSO - I just learned this at the naturalization ceremony we held this morning (welcoming over a thousand new Americans!) but: new citizens are eligible for same-day registration in CA, so if you happen to know anyone who falls in that group, they are welcome at the local Department of Elections until 8 p.m.
posted by psoas at 12:51 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


yesster: "Al Gore would be a crystalline-perfect Supreme Court nominee."

He never finished law school.
posted by octothorpe at 12:51 PM on June 7, 2016


You don't have to question people's mental abilities just because they disagree with you.

Of course not. But if someone straightfacedly makes the claim that they cannot find a single way in which Clinton and Trump significantly differ, it is not unreasonable to call into question either their critical thinking skills or their sincerity.
posted by dersins at 12:51 PM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]




He never finished law school.

phew, we dodged a bullet in '00!
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:52 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Apparently being a Supreme Court Justice is kind of deathly boring, and Obama strikes me as the type of dude who would be intent on actually enjoying his retirement.

oh my god i hope he trolls the entire world and announces his plans to run for president of kenya
posted by poffin boffin at 12:52 PM on June 7, 2016 [38 favorites]


It looks as though Florida's going to be a target-rich environment

Target rich environment you say?
posted by Talez at 12:53 PM on June 7, 2016


My parents are late-50s and mid-60s and liberal. Both voted Sanders in the primary, both most definitely plan to vote for Clinton in the general, so there's no point in my picking a fight with them about it... but they both say that they personally don't like her and find her 'smug,' and feel she doesn't care about 'regular' people very much and is power-hunger for power's own sake.

I myself am in my late 20s and barely remember the Lewinsky scandal as a grade-school joke, and it's weird - I just simply don't see that. People state it as fact, but for me it's like I'm seeing one thing and being told something totally different.

I mean, sure, she's not a down-home aw-shucks everywoman, but why should anyone expect her to be? She's been operating the levers of power for longer than I've been alive. She isn't a 'regular person' - and isn't that a good thing? I know a hell of a lot of regular people and none of them should be the damn President, because they would never be able to handle it.

Of all the people I know, the closest equivalent to Clinton I can think of is my boss's boss. She runs an international NGO which does high-level policy advocacy, and is on a first-name basis with the Ministers of Justice of a couple dozen countries. She is constantly working - we get emails from her at 3am, and that's when she isn't in some far-flung time zone. Her ability to multitask is insane, her vision is staggering, her confidence in her ability to actually change the word is inspiring.

But is she a 'regular person'? Hell no. And is she 'likeable'? Who the hell cares?
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:55 PM on June 7, 2016 [85 favorites]


Mark Kirk must be feeling the heat from Tammy Duckworth's "silence is betrayal" speech yesterday, because he's just announced that he "can not and will not support my party's candidate for President."
posted by zombieflanders at 12:56 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


I am absolutely not one of those people and will vote for Clinton and all that, but I find these sorts of statements an awful part of this election. You don't have to question people's mental abilities just because they disagree with you. It seems like soooo many would rather build up their own egos (because of course people think their own opinions are the correct ones) rather than respect that not everyone agrees on things and that's OK.

While i'm not a fan of statements that directly attack the intelligence of someone you disagree with, refusing to participate is not a traditional disagreement. "I'm taking my ball and going home" is not the same as "i'm choosing a different option from you and we disagree", even if they try and present it as such.

I think that's part of what brings out that sort of response, although it has definitely popped up in other areas of discussion(often in disappointing or gross ways) this election.

Someone saying they'd rather be nude than wear a red or blue shirt is a lot different than even someone saying they dislike both options and will wear an orange one. That's part of the bafflement, especially when it comes down to "so you'd rather freeze?".

I'll also note that i'm not some white guy who just thinks ~people are being foolish~ here. I'm native american, and a tribal member... And could see myself getting fucked over even though i'm disappointed in some of the fucking Obama did nothing about.

There is definitely a strain of condescension and "I know better than you that you could get hurt" in these discussions you just can't wring out, and i understand peoples squicking at that. What i don't understand is the actual refusal to engage when material harm is right there.

Just because the rhetoric and interpersonal engagement style bugs you doesn't mean that the underlying problem and choice in response to it is bad. It's not just about disagreeing with it, especially when it's other people who are in harms way saying "what the fuckkkk".
posted by emptythought at 12:56 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


And is she 'likeable'? Who the hell cares?

In 2000, the media was all about how "likable" George W. Bush was, how much he was the guy you wanted to have a beer with compared to that sighing wonk Al Gore. Look where that got us.
posted by Gelatin at 12:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


I just got back from voting, guys! Only one day after the race was called, so that's close enough!

NBC is reporting that Senator Mark Kirk (R) from Illinois has withdrawn his support for Donald Trump in November and says he can not and will not vote for his party's nominee. First pebble of the avalanche?
posted by Justinian at 12:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


The most terrifying thing to me is the number of young progressives i know who simply wont vote or will write someone in if he does drop out. I fight with them almost every goddamn day, but they flat out refuse to buckle on this going "well Trump and Clinton are awful too for different reasons i refuse to be pushed into a box!".

Time will heal some of that. With Bernie still jumping up and down and howling at the moon that I'M STILL IN THE RACE DAMMIT AND IF I LOSE THE ESTABLISHMENT STOLE IT FROM ME, of _course_ many of his Tear It All Down supporters are going to be equally in denial. Give it two months, when the nominations are official and the wounds aren't quite as fresh and Trump is on Meet the Press declaring that he'll pave over Mecca and sell Alaska back to the Russians when elected, and most of them will come around.

I suspect some will back down when they realize Trump really could win, because the general consensus seems to be that he never could, and they don't want to cast a vote on principal out of general disgust.

The more pertinent question is not "can Trump win" but "can Trump win MY STATE?" If your friends live in battleground states, then yes, their coming around is significant. If they're in Oklahoma or Vermont, well, only so much harm can be done.

(And, yes, harm can be done -- if they stay home, instead of writing in Howard the Duck for Prez but voting reasonably on state and local offices and conservatives sneak into those due to apathy. Part of swaying the Bernouts is reminding them that this isn't a single-office ballot coming up.)
posted by delfin at 12:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]




yesster: "Al Gore would be a crystalline-perfect Supreme Court nominee."

He never finished law school.


There is no requirement for a Supreme Court Justice to have attended, much less finished, law school. In fact, there are no Constitutional requirements to be a Justice whatsoever, other than that they "shall hold their offices during good behaviour".
posted by Etrigan at 1:01 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


Mark Kirk must be feeling the heat from Tammy Duckworth's "silence is betrayal" speech yesterday, because he's just announced that he "can not and will not support my party's candidate for President."

He's got an uphill battle in general, right? He came in on that 2010 wave, but he's in a solidly blue state and facing a very tough opponent with national name recognition.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:01 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


And is she 'likeable'? Who the hell cares?


One of the things that's been interesting for me personally in this election cycle has been my shift, as I get to know more about Clinton, from seeing her as Lucille-Bluth-lite to seeing her as a total Lisa Simpson/Leslie Knope.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [55 favorites]


Wow, I hadn't heard about this. As if I needed a reason to hate the Human Rights Campaign more. One of the ten Senate seats most likely to flip and give the Dems a majority, and you endorse the Republican in a hamfisted attempt at bipartisanship - even though you gave the Democrat a perfect score on their own 'equality report card'? Fuck you.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [23 favorites]


It's not their disagreement that I have a problem with. It's the statement, which is demonstrably false in so many ways, that there isn't much difference between Clinton and Trump. I coach debate. I'm very comfortable with people disagreeing with me and have no trouble admiring and respecting when they do it well.

In this particular case, I only attempt to take the conversation further if I think there is a possibility that they vote in a battleground state.
posted by bardophile at 1:09 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yes. Mark Kirk is the first domino that will fall in the Senate. He was up against an uninspired political neophyte, Alexi Giannoulias, who was also involved the family business which was a bank, at a time when the banks were rather more unpopular than usual.

Basically the stars aligned for Kirk to get elected in 2010 and it is not going to happen again barring some pretty major plot twist.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:10 PM on June 7, 2016


Yeah, I still get mail from the HRC, but I gave up donating to them a while over stuff like that.
posted by tavella at 1:10 PM on June 7, 2016


Oh and he totes said he was gonna be a good little moderate establishment centrist Republican of the old-fashioned Midwestern variety.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:12 PM on June 7, 2016


[Gore]'s still eligible, even though he's been elected President once.

Man, jokes about this are gonna hurt for the rest of my life aren't they
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [35 favorites]


And, now, as a palate cleanser between more servings of heaping plates of grar, may I present:

Donald Trump’s Short Fingers: A Historical Analysis
posted by y2karl at 1:14 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]




The last thing we need is for him to morph into a more thoughtful, presidential persona—which I totally believe he could do, because the man is a talented sociopath who will act however he thinks he needs to act to get what he wants. The GOP establishment is already pressuring him to do this, and he very well might.

Sociopath he may be, high-caliber actor he is not. I don't think he's ever changed his persona; I think he's used his money and the power it gave him to pay off or bully people out of his way. But I also think he crumbles and lashes out at the slightest real opposition (as we've seen) or even being asked a tough question. He's never learned how to be tough because his money and his bombast meant people got out of his way or even liked him. But underneath that shell, he's a spineless little slug and the only real question is if the media decides to cover for his weakness or not. They really like the ratings he brings, and have a corruption problem of their own, so it's hard to know.
posted by emjaybee at 1:15 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


At this point I think it's about 50/50 if Trump quits in a huff before the convention. Which I have mixed feelings about, since Cruz is the likely replacement, and he's a) a Dominionst who has literally been raised to believe he is the messiah, and b) slightly more electable than Trump. Only very slightly in my opinion, but he at least knows the theory of how to wear a human-skin suit long enough to be elected.
posted by tavella at 1:16 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


the problem is literally everybody can tell he's wearing a skin suit. the tag from the skin suit store is still hanging off the back
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:17 PM on June 7, 2016 [34 favorites]


...and b) slightly more electable than Cruz.

But what if one of them pushes his identical twin off the cliff ?
posted by y2karl at 1:18 PM on June 7, 2016


This Trump judge thing (both on the Trump side and the GOP establishment side) is so fucking nuts that I can't believe that the RNC isn't shitting its pants trying to figure out a way to change the convention rules to give the nomination to literally anyone else.
posted by Automocar at 1:22 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm sort of expecting them to toss a golden snitch into the crowd at the convention and just go with whoever catches it
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [23 favorites]


TRUMP / MALFOY 2016
posted by dersins at 1:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


I'm sort of expecting them to toss a golden snitch into the crowd at the convention and just go with whoever catches it

Lee Jordan: THE SNITCH HAS BEEN CAUGHT! AND IT'S... uh... Gregory Goyle? oh, uh, ok
Goyle: *gormless grin*
posted by duffell at 1:26 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


I began as a Hillary supporter mostly with pragmatic resignation- and affection for Sanders. Increasingly, as I've volunteered for her-- I'm a youngish man-- I've been more and more moved by the women volunteering with me. The volunteers are far and away majority women, young and old, but skewing towards middle-aged folks. They are practical and smart and I'm learning lots from them. And, mostly quietly, they know that they are part of a liberation movement. They have spent their lives being dismissed and less safe because they are women. They - like my mother- smuggled friends to Canada before Roe V Wade. They are still working to make things better. They are about to help give us a President who can tell that story herself. I am so so glad that we are on the verge of winning.
posted by SandCounty at 1:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [78 favorites]


In more "this convention is going to be crazy" news, looks like Rafael Cruz, Cruz's hellfire breathing Dominionist dad, has been elected as a delegate from Texas.
posted by corb at 1:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump released a new statement about Judge Curiel. Apparently it's not about the Judge's heritage, but about ethics in judging or something. And the media are all liars because all Trump U students were happy and the unhappy ones could get refunds and we'll just not question why such happy students complained to their Attorney General about me.
posted by zachlipton at 1:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


Interestingly, Trump also says he does "not intend to comment on this matter any further." Are we taking bets on how long that promise will last?
posted by zachlipton at 1:32 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


That's the interesting question about a Trump implosion. If he suddenly takes his marbles and goes home, who would the RNC nominate? I can't think it would be Cruz, if only because he never removes the sales tag from his skin suit (as pointed out).

But if not Cruz, then who? I can't think of anyone else on this year's GOP candidate list who would work. Jeb didn't want to be there. Rubio couldn't even win his own state. Kasich is a boring non-entity who is still largely unknown after a lengthy campaign. I suppose they'd draft Ryan. Who would be quite humble and aw-shucks about it, after having orchestrated the whole thing in the background.
posted by honestcoyote at 1:32 PM on June 7, 2016


Corb, do the Cruz supporters you know agree with his Dominionist orientation, or just see him as more palatable alternative than Trump?
I find them both very scary as presidential candidates, for different reasons, but I'm curious about patterns of support within the Republican party.
posted by Superplin at 1:33 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I like the straightforward clarity of this part of Trump's statement:

the Judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations.
posted by diogenes at 1:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Are we taking bets on how long that promise will last?

I call 6 PM.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump released a new statement about Judge Curiel.

The second line of Trump's statement is literally the cliched "some of my best friends are..." gambit.
posted by aught at 1:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Are we taking bets on how long that promise will last?
I call 6 PM.


I'll give 1:3 odds he breaks before 6pm tomorrow.
posted by Theta States at 1:38 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Here's the thing about it though: if Trump wins, there's a 90% chance that his presidency will be such a disaster that, if there the USA is still an electoral democracy, (indeed, if the world is still inhabited by non-radioactive mutants) in 2020, the GOP will likely never hold the office of president for the the lifetime of every living millenial.
This sort of thinking been tried here in Europe.

The inexcusable idea that it would be remotely acceptable to throw vulnerable people under the bus by electing Trump to bring about some sort of hypothetical 'revolution,' the ideological hard left in Italy tried that with refusing to vote against Berlusconi and ended up stuck with the hideously corrupt, violent, ridiculous bastard for nearly two decades when he bullied the Italian media into submission to his cult of personality. The short fingered moldy pumpkin has explicitly laid out his plans to follow roughly the same career path of marching right over anything that opposes him with the full power of the executive branch and more.

Its beyond naive to suggest that the left wing would somehow have more electoral power with a neo-fascist orange dumpster fire seeking to dominate the increasingly scattered remains of the institutions that support our democracy.
posted by Blasdelb at 1:38 PM on June 7, 2016 [55 favorites]


Isn't it too late to put Ryan on the ballot?
posted by bardophile at 1:38 PM on June 7, 2016


For what it's worth, I don't think Cruz actually is a Dominionist, or even a Dominionist-lite- I think he probably has unconscious attitudes shaped by growing up in that, but I don't think he's got conscious Dominionism. However, Eyebrows had a great comment on how some forms of Dominionism are mostly about getting Christians elected and setting up a "better world", and there's definitely some threads of that.

The threads I see are:

1) Crypto-libertarians
2) Constitutionalists (who also have some feels about America's Past)
3) Religious conservatives
4) please god not Trump
posted by corb at 1:40 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


refusing to participate is not a traditional disagreement.

Sure it is. "Here are two choices; they both suck" "okay then, neither!" is a perfectly acceptable disagreement. In a solidly Democratic state, where someone like Trump isn't going to win regardless, these people's choosing to opt out of the process is unlikely to affect the outcome. In a solidly Republican state, where Trump is going to win anyway, someone of liberal/progressive/whatever inclinations, faced with the choice of "cast an essentially meaningless vote for this candidate you didn't want to win the nomination, or don't vote at all" is more likely to choose the latter. (It'd be really nice if all the people who are all "OMG you have to vote for Hillary or we're all doomed" would try to remember that not everyone is in a swing state.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:41 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


This is interesting. I'm scrolling randomly through this PDF of Trump University evaluations (from Trump's 98percentapproval.com, sidenote: dictators don't even poll that well). The forms ask participants to rate each staff member from the seminars. A handful give mediocre ratings, but I also see a non-trivial number where people rated a staffer "4," crossed that out," then rated them a "5" instead (e.g. page 37). I'm sure no pressure (or the staffer doing it themselves) was involved there.
posted by zachlipton at 1:42 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Isn't it too late to put Ryan on the ballot?

The party can put whoever it wants on the ballot -- registration deadlines are for independent candidates and parties that haven't polled well enough in past elections to get an automatic spot. It's if Trump drops out after being formally nominated that things get dicey, because at that point the party has already decided who it wants to put on the ballot.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:42 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Its beyond naive to suggest that the left wing would somehow have more electoral power with a neo-fascist orange dumpster fire seeking to dominate the increasingly scattered remains of the institutions that support our democracy.

Counterpoint: Clinton wears expensive clothes!
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 1:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


I am absolutely not one of those people and will vote for Clinton and all that, but I find these sorts of statements an awful part of this election. You don't have to question people's mental abilities just because they disagree with you. It seems like soooo many would rather build up their own egos (because of course people think their own opinions are the correct ones) rather than respect that not everyone agrees on things and that's OK.

But... it's actually provable that Clinton and Trump are NOT the same. I mean, how much respect am I supposed to give someone who continually posts that NOPE meme with the pic of their faces melded together as a legitimate response to people that ask them to please actually do the research?
posted by palomar at 1:44 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


Ah, thank you for that clarification, Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish!
posted by bardophile at 1:45 PM on June 7, 2016


This just in from the Reductress,
I’m Not Political (Because I Assume I Will Retain All of My Privileges Forever)
"Listen guys, I get it. You hate the orange guy with the crazy hair. You love the old guy with the crazy hair. You think Hillary is a woman but she sends too many emails. Wow, you’re soooo political. Good for you. I just don’t like to get into that sort of thing. I’d rather abstain from all the petty name-calling and meme-swapping because I believe that life is about more than just politics. (Also, because I’m pretty sure that whatever happens will not affect my day-to-day life in any way because I’m not a member of a historically oppressed group.)

I guess politics has never appealed to me because I just don’t enjoy arguing (things I do enjoy: massages, sriracha, extreme privilege as the result of a class system rigged in my favor, NOT ARGUING). I don’t need to spend hours debating what led to the Iraq War—it feels like it went by super fast anyways (since no one in my social circle had to join the military to pay for college). It’s not important to me that I understand the best solution to economic inequality—my great-grandfather invented steel. While some people need to always be right, I would rather always be kind. Maybe if everyone were always kind, we wouldn’t even need politics (I don’t know what poverty is because my father invested in soybean futures). Honestly, if more people were like me (low-key rich, able-bodied), we wouldn’t have to have these fights about things that don’t affect me and never will.

Another thing I don’t like about politics is how it divides people. I believe that we are all the same (almost all my friends went to the same college). So I think we should be able to find common ground when it comes to the major issues affecting our lives, whatever those may be. My best friend is actually a socially conservative libertarian and I have never once let that come between us because I have never asked her what that means and she always has weed. If you’ve been on social media lately, you know that it can seem like politics is impossible to avoid. But imagine for a second what would happen if we replaced all the angry rants about healthcare and immigration with pictures of kittens and puppies. I, for one, would definitely feel better. I already have healthcare and don’t know why anyone would want to change countries—it sounds like it would be really difficult!

In conclusion, I know it’s fun sometimes to get all riled up and scream at the TV. But I’m pretty sure that, come November, whether we elect the guy from The Apprentice or the guy from Curb Your Enthusiasm, everything is going to be okay (at least for me)."
posted by Blasdelb at 1:46 PM on June 7, 2016 [50 favorites]


On a happier note, mother-in-law and I both have ice cream, stickers and are snuggling with our respective doggies waiting for Hillary's speech.
posted by Sophie1 at 1:53 PM on June 7, 2016 [21 favorites]


I suspect that the last-legally-difficult way for the RNC to deal if Trump flames out (and I'd love to see what color flame his weird hair and spray tan would produce) would be to promote the Officially Nominated VP Candidate to the top role. Which is why one of the most fascinating things for me between now and the convention will be Trumpy's choice for running mate. He has to know that if he chooses anybody with any serious status within the GOP, it'll just increase the intra-party pressure against him.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:54 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Not only do we not live in battleground states, most of us don't. The election will be decided by how much money Clinton and Trump can throw at advertisers in a tiny handful of states in a desperate effort to get a few mostly ignorant people to get off their butts and vote.

Yes, I'm bitter.

The Electoral College votes for my state will go to Trump. There's just no question, no other possibility, no hope for a different outcome. I'm in Texas.

Worse, I'm in the 21st Congressional District, thanks to some very careful gerrymandering, so my vote for the House won't matter, the winner will be Lamar smith.

Other than my devotion to voting, I honestly might as well stay home on election day. And that's the situation for the vast majority of Americans. We simply don't matter, our votes don't count, the Electoral College is settled in most places, the House is gerrymandered to such an extent that it takes either a major scandal or an act of God to get rid of a sitting Representative (and possibly neither will work).

I guess it makes the people in the swing states feel special, but for me all it does is reaffirm my deep rooted commitment to a national popular vote and the end of the obscene anti-democratic nature of the Electoral College. Which will probably never happen, but I can still hope.
posted by sotonohito at 1:57 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


> (It'd be really nice if all the people who are all "OMG you have to vote for Hillary or we're all doomed" would try to remember that not everyone is in a swing state.

I would agree with that sentiment in any other year but I think a lot of conventional wisdom about elections might be going out the window right and I would really rather not find out about that after the fact so ...

uh, unless you like orange dumpster fires please go vote for Hilary in November.
posted by Tevin at 1:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


David Brin's been prognosticating for a while about Ryan becoming a dramatic last minute nominee for a little while now. Weird if that happened - of course, weird that Bush II happened...
posted by Golem XIV at 1:59 PM on June 7, 2016


one of the most fascinating things for me between now and the convention will be Trumpy's choice for running mate.
If there’s one thing this past year has demonstrated, it’s that I am not good at guessing the actions of Trump or the GOP, but my guess is Pat Buchanan.
posted by nicepersonality at 2:00 PM on June 7, 2016


Pat Buchanan, who scared the fuck out of people during 92? (Which only Al Franken was wise enough to see at the time.)

Franken for VP, it would be the inverse of Why Not Me?
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 2:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


and I'd love to see what color flame his weird hair and spray tan would produce

Well, molybdate was a widely used orange pigment, and contained high levels of lead and chromium, which are consistent with our candidate's violent idiocy. Molybdenum and lead give off greenish flames when burned, while chromium is a silver-white, so I'm gonna go with nuclear green.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


It'd be really nice if all the people who are all "OMG you have to vote for Hillary or we're all doomed" would try to remember that not everyone is in a swing state

As far as I'm concerned, folks can vote (or not vote) however they please. But goddamn this particular argument annoys me. Sufficient numbers of people not voting (e.g. because their state is a safe state) is one good way to turn a safe state into a swing state.
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [45 favorites]


I loved this moment from this article that was linked in the previous thread:

Her eyes lit up; it’s as if she’d been waiting for someone to ask her about the surprising possibilities of the electoral map this year. So which states do you think Trump puts in play? I asked, mentioning the possibility of Georgia, which some think could go Democratic for the first time since her husband won it in 1992.

“Texas!” she exclaimed, eyes wide, as if daring me to question this, which I did. “You are not going to win Texas,” I said. She smiled, undaunted. “If black and Latino voters come out and vote, we could win Texas,” she told me firmly, practically licking her lips.


I don't know enough about voting trends to know if that's as crazy as it sounds. I do know that Clinton is not stupid. But that stuck with me enough that it was the first thing I thought of when I read that comment - that image of her leaning forward in her seat, exclaiming "Texas!"
posted by sunset in snow country at 2:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [30 favorites]


Sufficient numbers of people not voting (e.g. because their state is a safe state) is one good way to turn a safe state into a swing state.

I don't actually think this is true. New York is not in danger.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:07 PM on June 7, 2016




Some examples of changed Trump University survey results, found in a few minutes of haphazard scrolling. This pattern is present across different years, instructors, and locations. Given the sales pressure they put on these folks, a bit of pressure to give a good survey rating is nothing.
posted by zachlipton at 2:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm going to go with Ted Cruz:

1) Only elected Republican hated anywhere near as much as he is

2) Would appeal to Cruz's unholy lust for power

3) Attractive to evangelicals

4) Has no soul

5) Ill-fitting human skinsuit distracts from Trump's hair and skin
posted by zombieflanders at 2:09 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


My most cynical instincts tell me that Trump will pick a deeply socially conservative black pastor as his running mate in a truly pathetic attempt to deflect charges of racism and phony faith.

Trump is not what you'd call subtle.
posted by duffell at 2:10 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sufficient numbers of people not voting (e.g. because their state is a safe state) is one good way to turn a safe state into a swing state.

Yes, the "Bern it down" contingent here in the wet side and the failure of likely voter models to capture white nationalist voters means hell yes I'm voting.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


i imagine that trump would likely prefer a cringing pusillanimous lickspittle as his sidekick, like voldemort and pettigrew. so chris christie, presumably.
posted by poffin boffin at 2:12 PM on June 7, 2016 [22 favorites]


I don't actually think this is true. New York is not in danger.

We can go back and forth for several rounds litigating exactly how much of an electoral shift it would take to put states in various shades of bluish purple in play, or we can agree that the only thing that makes states blue, red, or purple is how many people vote for each party's nominee, and that at least some states currently considered safe blue could be put into play by people thinking their vote won't affect the outcome.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:14 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


We can go back and forth for several rounds litigating exactly how much of an electoral shift it would take to put states in various shades of bluish purple in play, or we can agree that the only thing that makes states blue, red, or purple is how many people vote for each party's nominee, and that at least some states currently considered safe blue could be put into play by people thinking their vote won't affect the outcome.

I also think it's worth noting that blue states--even deeply blue states--elect Republican governors all the time, and at a political moment when everyone's talking about how the "normal rules don't apply," I'm sure as shit not going to sit on my hands on Election Day here in Maryland.
posted by duffell at 2:16 PM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


"I don't have to do the needful thing because other people will vote for the not-terrible candidate in my state" is one of those things that's factually correct but not really a super defensible stance on the merits. Like, cool, you get to write in a wacky candidate and fist-bump your conscience for not having to vote for the lesser of two evils because your state is full of boring normies who'll vote for the 1 out of 2 candidates who won't burn the world with wildfire? Cool. Cool cool cool
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:17 PM on June 7, 2016 [56 favorites]


Looking for a running mate, Trump may have some of his people following these people begging "ple-e-e-e-eze"...
Chuck Norris
Ted Nugent
Dennis Miller
Kelsey Grammer
Jon Voight
Glenn Beck
although he may be worried some of them might somehow upstage him - that's why Clint Eastwood, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (well, also because of 'the woman card' for Ann) aren't on the list.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:18 PM on June 7, 2016


other than Omarosa, whom I know will be the VP nominee*, I really still think Ivanka or Jared Kushner are strong possibilities.

*YOU CAN TAKE THIS TO THE BANK
posted by sallybrown at 2:19 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


because your state is full of boring normies who'll vote for the 1 out of 2 candidates who won't burn the world with wildfire? Cool. Cool cool cool

Yeah, bit of a prisoner's dilemma there. You get to salve your conscience by defecting... but if enough people defect everybody dies in a conflagration.
posted by Justinian at 2:19 PM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


The reason I care about people voting for Clinton even if they don't live in a swing state is that I had to live through 8 years of Bill Clinton's presidency with every GOP talking head on TV saying "This president doesn't even have a mandate!" because he didn't get a strict majority of the popular vote.

From a political perspective, there is a difference in perceived power if it's 55-45 Clinton-Trump instead of 48-41-11 Clinton-Trump-LizardPeople.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:20 PM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


Glenn Beck is probably not someone who would make a good VP pick for Trumpsky
posted by saturday_morning at 2:21 PM on June 7, 2016


The only state that has never voted for a Republican executive at either the state or federal level in the modern age is actually not a state. That's right, the only ones who get to talk smack are DC voters.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:21 PM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


"I don't have to do the needful thing because other people will vote for the not-terrible candidate in my state"

It's a very teenage argument, in line with "why shouldn't I throw garbage out the car window, there's already all kinds of garbage out there, and someone will pick it up".
posted by bongo_x at 2:22 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


In a solidly Republican state, where Trump is going to win anyway, someone of liberal/progressive/whatever inclinations, faced with the choice of "cast an essentially meaningless vote for this candidate you didn't want to win the nomination, or don't vote at all" is more likely to choose the latter. (It'd be really nice if all the people who are all "OMG you have to vote for Hillary or we're all doomed" would try to remember that not everyone is in a swing state.)"
We appear to be in the middle of a political reorientation that may end up as profound as the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement, and Trump has proven resistant to conventional predictive models so far, we may have little good idea of what States will be close until the actual election for an unusually large number of States. Regardless, if a decision not to vote truly does end up being meaningless to the Presidential election, it is a politically meaningless protest - no one in the Democratic Party will care how you feel any more as a result. The only thing the party apparatus cares about are delinquent citizens who would help the painted fascist mole rat gain access to the nuclear codes and who would leave their States, municipalities, and cities in the hands of whomever the Republican party has in mind because women aren't relatable.
posted by Blasdelb at 2:22 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'd love to see what color flame his weird hair and spray tan would produce

What's that color in Discworld? Octarine? I'm gonna go with that or some other unnameable, sickly, poisonous color. Something from Lovecraft.
posted by emjaybee at 2:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


as an aside i just want to state for the permanent forever internets record that if the presumably upcoming thread on next month's DNC is not titled IT'S HOT AS HELL IN PHILADELPHIA then i will fucking riot
posted by poffin boffin at 2:26 PM on June 7, 2016 [22 favorites]


I mean, let's not give Mitch McConnell the excuse to get on CSPAN and say "The majority of voters chose someone other than Hillary Clinton. The Supreme Court vacancies should only be filled by a President who earned majority support, and we will continue to filibuster to make sure that happens."

Maintaining your driven-snow ideological purity voting for DeezNuts isn't worth this.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:26 PM on June 7, 2016 [23 favorites]


i imagine that trump would likely prefer a cringing pusillanimous lickspittle as his sidekick, like voldemort and pettigrew. so chris christie, presumably.

Nah, it will be Scott Walker. Trump needs his access to the Koch money spigot, and if there is one political figure easier to bully and dominate than Chris Christie, it's sad-sack dope Walker. Plus, Trump can pretend he has "The Heartland" in mind. Walker gets to walk away from a simmering stew of corruption scandals. Win-win for both of 'em.
posted by Chrischris at 2:26 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83
Anthony Kennedy is 79
Stephen Breyer is 77
Clarence Thomas is 67
Samuel Alito is 66
John Roberts is 61
Sonia Sotomayor is also 61
Elena Kagan is 56

Trumpo delenda est.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


Oh god, if Trump took Walker off our hands I would dance with joy.
posted by The Gaffer at 2:28 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


If the possibility of safely blue states turning red doesn't scare you, how about this? Vote to deliver Trump a humiliating defeat. Vote to tell the nation (and the world) that the American electorate, for all its foibles, will ultimately punish racist and sexist rhetoric and actions. Think about what a huge margin of victory, even in New York, would tell the people who are most likely to be affected by Trump's proposed policies: that you've got their back. Can you imagine the rush of joy you will feel about the fundamental goodness of the American people if Trump's policies are repudiated firmly in November, with a crushing defeat?
posted by peacheater at 2:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [126 favorites]


> "At this point I think it's about 50/50 if Trump quits in a huff before the convention."

This is really vanishingly unlikely.
posted by kyrademon at 2:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Why can't Thomas be 83? Can somebody do some dark magics and switch his age up with RBG?
posted by angrycat at 2:31 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't really care if young white people vote tbh they aren't really that important a demo outside of twitter.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:33 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Peacheater, that's exactly how I felt when the 2008 election was called for Obama before 10 PM. Even though I knew I voted in a reliably Blue state that was always going to go Democratic. Even though I rolled up at my polling place in a predominantly African-American neighborhood to wait in line for over 2 hours to vote alongside people who had grown up under Jim Crow, whose parents or grandparents may have been slaves. My vote wasn't necessary, but it just felt so, so good.
posted by Sara C. at 2:33 PM on June 7, 2016 [23 favorites]


But then, we know The Notorious RBG is immortal... I mean, she has to be.

And I agree that Trump quitting in a huff BEFORE the convention is almost impossible. He's living for the standing ovation from people who don't really like him there. It's once the finals begin that he may decide "aw fuck it, I'm taking my billions and going home" EXCEPT we all know he doesn't really have "billions".
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I continually boggle at how young Clarence Thomas is. He was practically a fetus when he was nominated!

A fetus who had already sexually harassed one of his subordinates.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


What's frightening me are the Trump voters I see around the edges of my Facebook who say things like, "Trump will win in a landslide." So if that doesn't happen, what then?

What's really frightening me though is the thought, "Are they Baghdad Bob? Or am I?"
posted by ob1quixote at 2:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Why can't Thomas be 83? Can somebody do some dark magics and switch his age up with RBG?

It would be pretty baller if vampires were real and one of them could turn RBG. LIFETIME TERM, SUCKERS.
posted by duffell at 2:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


If young white people were that vital if a demo the headlines would be different today.

Next time Socialist Dems, let's do the work to make sure that our leftie candidate has the ability to appeal to a wide spectrum of voters.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


maybe everyone should set up a little phone alert or something reminding them every morning that a major party has nominated an unstable and charismatic strongman obsessed with racist conspiracy theories and openly contemptuous of the rule of law, and that he must be stopped at all costs
posted by theodolite at 2:36 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


If the possibility of safely blue states turning red doesn't scare you, how about this? Vote to deliver Trump a humiliating defeat. Vote to tell the nation (and the world) that the American electorate, for all its foibles, will ultimately punish racist and sexist rhetoric and actions. Think about what a huge margin of victory, even in New York, would tell the people who are most likely to be affected by Trump's proposed policies: that you've got their back. Can you imagine the rush of joy you will feel about the fundamental goodness of the American people if Trump's policies are repudiated firmly in November, with a crushing defeat?

Repeated response i've seen to this that's fair IMO: But that image has already been tarnished or destroyed by the fact that he even made it this far, or was even given airtime. Just because he was shot down doesn't mean that sentiment and mindset don't still have a lot of, and seemingly growing political capital.

Basically, everybody who isn't white already knows the US is racist as hell still. Defeating trump and viewing it this way is basically saying mission accomplished, when trump is only the symptom and not the problem.

Whether he loses by 2% or 30%, he still got to play the game at that level at all with that much support. Losing, assuming he does either way, is less important than the fact that he was taken seriously at all.
posted by emptythought at 2:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Next time Socialist Dems, let's do the work to make sure that our leftie candidate has the ability to appeal to a wide spectrum of voters.

I agree, if by "next time" you mean "starting on November 9th."
posted by tonycpsu at 2:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Think about what a huge margin of victory, even in New York, would tell the people who are most likely to be affected by Trump's proposed policies: that you've got their back. Can you imagine the rush of joy you will feel about the fundamental goodness of the American people if Trump's policies are repudiated firmly in November, with a crushing defeat?

Yup, I'd REALLY APPRECIATE IT if everyone who's shrugging all "my vote doesn't matter anyway" would remember that some of us are feeling awfully unsafe and unwelcome right now in our own country, and even the passive declaration of "we don't support this garbage monster who's moved past dog whistles to full on racism" means something to us.
posted by yasaman at 2:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [65 favorites]


maybe everyone should set up a little phone alert or something reminding them every morning that a major party has nominated an unstable and charismatic strongman obsessed with racist conspiracy theories and openly contemptuous of the rule of law, and that he must be stopped at all costs

REMINDER: EVERYTHING REMAINS TERRIBLE
posted by poffin boffin at 2:38 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


If the combination of Trump's awful and Clinton's effort can put Texas into play I'd be delighted. I'm still somewhat doubtful, but he does seem to be going far out of his way to piss off every Latinx person on the planet.
posted by sotonohito at 2:38 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


> pig's head on a stake covered in flies 2020

A *pig's* head? Optimist.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


kyrademon: Possibly, but I was thinking less about Republican pressure and more about how his run is shining a giant spotlight on things like possible bribes to state AGs. And also it seems he is taking a big financial hit in terms of the Trump brand being able to sell abroad.
posted by tavella at 2:39 PM on June 7, 2016


I continually boggle at how young Clarence Thomas is. He was practically a fetus when he was nominated!

A fetus who had already sexually harassed one of his subordinates.


Oh, more than one. Anita Hill is just the only one who testified.
posted by Superplin at 2:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't think he'd choose Walker at all. By the time he dropped out, he was polling at less than 1%. Plus, Walker actively pushed his state's machine to try to stop Trump, throwing strong support behind Cruz.

My guess is Trump either taps Ben Carson or Palin.
posted by drezdn at 2:44 PM on June 7, 2016


There's no way. No way he picks either Carson or Palin.
posted by Justinian at 2:45 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just about the only thing that would scare me is if someone like Bloomberg made some kind of hideous super-Faustian bargain.
posted by Blasdelb at 2:46 PM on June 7, 2016


come on, he's gonna pick a slightly smaller than life sized cardboard cutout of himself

despite his smaller stature cardboard trump will have larger hands
posted by poffin boffin at 2:46 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


Christie already had the surgery he's a shoe in
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:48 PM on June 7, 2016


Literally the surgery implanted at least 1 shoe
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:49 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


"That's right, the only ones who get to talk smack are DC voters."

I was reflecting on the primary process as it slowly winds down, and I do actually think there's value to starting with small states where candidates have to do a lot of retail politics, and to a slow start where we get a lot of coverage and vetting and less-funded and less-known candidates can build some name recognition and momentum. And I thought, you know, what if to balance out the white, ruralish characters of Iowa and New Hampshire, Democrats had DC vote third, to get a relatively small electorate but a hyper-urban one and one with a very large minority population, which ALSO is unusually politically aware?

(I actually think Iowa in particular (I know less about NH) is not a terrible state to start for Democrats: Because it's a more centrist and demographically white state, a further left candidate like Sanders, or a demographically non-traditional one (like Obama or Clinton), who does well in Iowa has shown they can sell their candidacy not just to the base but to the wavering centrists in the party who have to be won. Whereas I think it screws Republicans because it overrepresents their evangelical base and boosts fringe GOP candidates who aren't palatable to those wavering centrists that must be captured to win a national majority. But I still think we need to get some more diversity way earlier in the process.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:52 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


Trump will create a clone of Trump to be the Vice President. He has the best scientists working in a huge, beautiful lab to create the Trump Clone to be Vice President.

Or he may pick a fictional character, such as Batman, or a color, such as teal.

These are best-case-scenarios.
posted by Cookiebastard at 2:55 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


(Obviously operating under the assumption that Iowa and NH cannot be dethroned and that we're going to be stuck with a drawn-out primary process for the foreseeable future, and pondering how to play within those boundaries.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:56 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Democrats can't afford to ignore any demo if they ever want to retake the House.

And Sanders won like 70 percent of voters under 30. You don't do that if you just appeal to white people.

Quite frankly, there are economic reasons his message resonated with millenial voters.

Still, nothing really matters until the Democrats can retake the House. Everyone should be working towards that.

I'm sure President Clinton would prefer not to have a Republics majority fighting her at every turn.
posted by eagles123 at 2:56 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


One thing that MUST BE NOTED is that if turnout is depressed by a lack of enthusiasm for Clinton, it'll be the farthest-left voters who'll sit it out, which will make it more like a mid-term election, when Republicans do freakishly well in the down-ticket races. Yikes.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


PULSATING TEAL SPHERE '20
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Democrats can't afford to ignore any demo if they ever want to retake the House.

This is something that can be leveled at hardline Clinton folks AND hardline Sanders folks. 'Sanders won like 70 percent of voters under 30' might be true, but the fact that it's true and he's still losing the popular primary vote means that voters under 30 aren't the only ones who matter, even if they are obviously the future of the party.
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


"Repeated response i've seen to this that's fair IMO: But that image has already been tarnished or destroyed by the fact that he even made it this far, or was even given airtime. Just because he was shot down doesn't mean that sentiment and mindset don't still have a lot of, and seemingly growing political capital."
Its not just us and our perception of safety that matter, and besides, dismissing that as already tarnished when there are vulnerable people in this thread telling us that it matters to them is kinda shitty. Just how solidly Hilary beats Trump matters a hell of a lot for the world and the kinds of actuarial judgments that might seem boring but are absolutely fucking vital to global security and prosperity. With Trump spelling out the end of NATO under his regime, how likely exactly is the success of a future Republican who would say the same thing? If it is, does that mean the EU would have to put itself through the nightmarishly destabilizing prospect of gluing together and funding an effective European Army without American leadership? Trump has said explicitly that he wouldn't even intervene in a war between North Korea and Japan, does that mean Japan needs to remilitarize right the fuck now regardless of the effect that would have on everything in East Asia? His trade plans, at least as he has vaguely articulated them, would rapidly bring global finance and trade to a standstill.

Its not just about us, the whole world depends on their being at least as many brain cells as W had being in the White House. Even the prospect of a President Trump, or Trump successor in the next cycle, will profoundly fuck up a world that is rapidly dragging people out of poverty by the billion, eradicating diseases, exploring the solar system, beginning to address climate change, and crafting ever more cute cat videos for global dissemination. Trump and what he represents within the American electorate is an existential threat to the logistics and validity of the human endeavor. The more soundly he is defeated the safer that is.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:06 PM on June 7, 2016 [41 favorites]


Emergency officials constantly have to deal with people who don't heed warnings/don't take proper precautions.......

Edit: (to showbizliz) Of course. And Sander's people aren't going to be able to accomplish their goals just by appealing to Democratic primary voters either.
posted by eagles123 at 3:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


The problem with "voters under 30" is they've never had it worse than it is now. And, even in my personal maximum-privilege position, I saw some things that were worse than today, and while I'm not thrilled with a "return to the Clinton '90s", I'd prefer it to the Reagan '80s, Nixon '70s or anything earlier... and when a candidate is promising to bring us back to the '30s (AS IT WAS IN GERMANY), our first priority must be preventing that! A step backwards is so much better than a step over the cliff, and a "lesser evil" must be better than "HELL ON EARTH". (Rhetorical overkill not really overkill)
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:16 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Some people you can't reach. You gotta recognize the limits of your influence and if you can't persuade someone, well, then you couldn't persuade them. Maybe you'll have better luck with someone else (provided you come at it honestly and respectfully which hopefully we're always doing). But there's never an absolute way to convince people to come to your point of view and you have to accept that you might not accomplish what you want.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:16 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Next time Socialist Dems, let's do the work to make sure that our leftie candidate has the ability to appeal to a wide spectrum of voters.

What?

Sanders fits that description. He's run a great campaign and has an incredibly broad appeal and would likely have pulled in voters Clinton will not be able to reach.

If he weren't running against Clinton, who is incredibly capable, has decades in the trenches and the limelight, executive and legislative experience, and also represents a historic possibility, he very likely would have won. As it is, Clinton's margin of victory is not that large.
posted by wildblueyonder at 3:17 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Its not just us and our perception of safety that matter, and besides, dismissing that as already tarnished when there are vulnerable people in this thread telling us that it matters to them is kinda shitty.

This was not my point. My point was more that:

1. What he's saying is nothing new, just louder and more public. A lot of this was the reality for many people already, it was just privileged people in those areas weren't seeing much of it.

2. The fear that an obvious defeat would make many of the people who were blind to #1 go "See, it's over!!"

I wasn't even getting in to the perception of the rest of the world, nor was i crapping on that or the importance of it. The issue here isn't vulnerable people it matters to, it's less vulnerable people thinking it's over if that does happen.(See also: racism is over because we have a black president now!)

That might seem crappy or uncharitable, but there are an awful lot of people who would react that way. It's a thing.
posted by emptythought at 3:17 PM on June 7, 2016


The Conservative Case for Hillary Clinton:
...here are six reasons why Clinton, from a conservative perspective, would be a better choice for president—or, at least, a less grim one—than Trump.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:19 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


1. What he's saying is nothing new, just louder and more public.

Yeah, and that's not trivial. The very fact that all of this is louder and more public is emboldening to racists. Like, there weren't goddamn KKK rallies going on practically in my backyard a couple years ago, and yet now there are.
posted by yasaman at 3:21 PM on June 7, 2016 [20 favorites]


If he weren't running against Clinton, who is has decades in the trenches and the limelight, executive and legislative experience, and also represents a historic possibility, he very likely would have won. As it is, Clinton's margin of victory is not that large.

No part of this is even remotely an accurate assessment of what we've spent the last several months enduring.

If Sanders had been running against someone who hadn't been constantly demonized for almost thirty years, he wouldn't even have been in the conversation after Super Tuesday.

(I won't even speculate as to what might have happened if that opponent had been a man, but, I mean, come on.)

As it is, Clinton's margin of victory over Sanders is likely to be significantly greater than Obama's was over her in 2008.
posted by dersins at 3:24 PM on June 7, 2016 [25 favorites]


At the risk to of coming across as unserious, can I just say that I wouldn't exactly mind if Europe took more of a role in ensuring its own security and dealing with stuff like terrorism?

I'm not arguing for isolationism, but can we at least recongize that ensuring world piece and pax Americana costs a lot of money?


I think you'll find that it's not really concern for Europe that is causing the US government to spend the giant amounts of money it currently does on its military. Frankly, the US has the largest defense system than every other country in the world combined. Europe's safety is not going to be threatened if the US demilitarizes a little bit - however it does threaten the large profits the military-industrial complex is currently raking in. I think you'll also find that the rest of the world thinks of the US's role in the world as a bit different than "ensuring world peace."
posted by peacheater at 3:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


> I guess it makes the people in the swing states feel special,

I've never lived in a swing state (hello HI, MA, NH, ME, VT, DC, MD, CA!) and my ballots have always been jammed with local initiatives and referenda and stuff like that. Totally worth going to the polls to vote for things that generally affect my life in a much more daily and immediate way that who sits in the Oval Office. I feel strongly that the all-too-repeated mantra of "My vote doesn't count" only serves those who would like your vote to not count.
posted by rtha at 3:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [21 favorites]


I've never voted in a swing state and I've still gotten to vote for marriage equality and marijuana legalization, as well as for some very lovely and inspiring Congresscritters. Voting is fun!
posted by sallybrown at 3:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Chilean-American female Trump voter on MSNBC explains why she likes him:
-He is honest.
-He doesn't have to do favors for anybody.
-He's not racist - he just speaks his mind, but he doesn't do it for the purpose of being racist, he just doesn't like the judge.

I agree Trump isn't going to do favors for anybody because all he cares about is himself. But how do you convince someone Trump isn't honest if they still think that after all this?
posted by sallybrown at 3:37 PM on June 7, 2016


I let my 3 year old press the Hillary checkbox this morning in NJ. #startthemyoung
posted by Stynxno at 3:38 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


I think you'll find that it's not really concern for Europe that is causing the US government to spend the giant amounts of money it currently does on its military. Frankly, the US has the largest defense system than every other country in the world combined. Europe's safety is not going to be threatened if the US demilitarizes a little bit

I realize that to so many Americans "Europe" means "Germany and everything West of it" but the fact is that parts of Europe are presently in the grip of civil war, other parts have recently ben annexed by a foreign power, and those of us over 30 can remember the last time genocide was a thing Europeans did to each other. Violence is still quite the thing in Europe the continent.
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


If he weren't running against Clinton, who is has decades in the trenches and the limelight, executive and legislative experience, and also represents a historic possibility, he very likely would have won. As it is, Clinton's margin of victory is not that large.

A bunch of other Dems chose to sit this year out precisely because Clinton was running. It's impossible to say what would have happened in this race if she hadn't run.
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Speaker Ryan's conflicting statements on acknowledging Trump's bigotry, then endorsing him, coupled with this assessment are extremely worrying for those of us even further outside the OECD sphere.

Racism, jingoism, macho posturing, and contradictory statements... what could possibly go wrong?

nb: RT is not an endorsement. Elements of that article are author's own political bias
posted by infini at 3:44 PM on June 7, 2016


Sir Edmund would be proud!
posted by clavdivs at 3:47 PM on June 7, 2016


[Please refer to taz's earlier mod note that you need to "drop all the making it personal stuff, the repetitive arguments that we've had over thousands of comments before, the Sanders/Clinton supporters suck stuff, the "bad person" arguments, and the whole "let's make it all about the that one 'I'm voting for Trump' guy."" and we are deleting with extreme prejudice. Flag things that suck, don't respond to them, and check to see if something's been deleted before you respond. Talk about new breaking news or something, because you are breaking your mod staff with your Clinton/Sanders infighting that has occurred in MORE THAN A DOZEN THREADS NOW.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [25 favorites]


I realize that to so many Americans "Europe" means "Germany and everything West of it" but the fact is that parts of Europe are presently in the grip of civil war, other parts have recently ben annexed by a foreign power,

you do understand that's a part of europe we dare not get real involved in, right? - likewise, we need to be real cautious of how we act in e asia, too

now if we had only learned the same kind of caution in the middle east
posted by pyramid termite at 3:48 PM on June 7, 2016


I for one voted for Sanders, not against Clinton. Roughly half the country wants single-payer healthcare, and that number goes way up when you poll younger folks. Sanders speaks passionately to that, and many other important progressive ideas, and he started a remarkably positive campaign centered around that message. That's why Sander's has done well. He's packed in huge crowds of supporters, they weren't sexist, anti-Clinton hate rallies. We want good policy, we voted for it. Most of us will vote for Clinton in November, some of us won't. The lesser of two evils seems to be the only option for a lot of Americans, so that's the lens through which they see everyone else's choices, but some of us want to vote FOR something every once in a while.
posted by Colby_Longhorn at 3:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


What he's saying is nothing new, just louder and more public.

Call me crazy, but I'll always be voting against bigotry. Yes, I already knew that the world was a racist and xenophobic place, and religious minorities, immigrants, and people of color have always had a hard time in this country.

But I fucking hate that and I will fight it until I die. Not because I'm a coddled liberal living in a white ivory tower where I'm allowed to think my silly opinions are normative, but because it's right.

Since when has "racism has always existed so it's no big deal" ever been a reason not to fight racism?
posted by Sara C. at 3:53 PM on June 7, 2016 [30 favorites]


The Clinton campaign released a video: History Made.
posted by peeedro at 3:55 PM on June 7, 2016 [28 favorites]


The Clinton campaign released a video

I was just coming here to link that because I just watched it and I'm crying now. Goddamn.

Backwards and in high heels, baby.
posted by Salieri at 3:56 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


The credible deterrence needed on behalf of Europe is most urgently for the former Soviet republics that are part of NATO (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) who look at places like Ukraine, as well as the cyber/economic dirty tricks that Russia already engages in against them, and wonder if NATO is as ironclad as we say it is.
posted by AndrewInDC at 3:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not typical. I've voted in almost every election, including primaries and special elections, since I've been eligible (back to 1974!). My only major miss was when I was notified my mother had died the morning of Reagan's landslide win in '84... as I was on the last-minute plane to Phoenix I thought "she probably sent off an absentee ballot while she was still breathing... I should advance vote-by-mail from now on". And I have. And I ruled out voting for a non-top-two party candidate early on... I was waiting for a bandwagon big enough to have a chance and the only one I ever saw which came close was Perot who was sadly a little like Trump but 50 I.Q. points smarter. And I've voted for Republicans less than 10% of the time and always after a lot of soul-searching... and knowing that California isn't a totally reliable "blue state" (almost every California Governor we've had since I've been voting has either been Republican or Jerry Brown). The last time I did was Bob Dole against Hillary's husband because I considered him the LAST mostly-honest and mostly-reasonable Republican and wanted to publicly resist the Gingrich-istas taking over half of our political establishment and the "third way" sell-outs taking over the other half. And while I'm at it, I've mentioned before that I've (somewhat masochistically) followed Trump's public career for decades and even when he passed himself off as a "Moderate Democrat" he was on my list of "public figures I'd NEVEREVEREVER vote for". I'm unenthused with Clinton but as I've declared before here, a step backwards is so much better than a step over the cliff, and in a "lesser of two evils" choice, petty-theft evil is much preferable to serial-murderer evil.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Very glad to see transgender women included in the "history made" video.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [25 favorites]


The next president is going to be either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I believe the best way to advance progressive ideas in this election is to do whatever you can to get Clinton elected president, and to get as many Democrats or progressive Independents elected as possible. In 2008 we elected Obama, but we didn't elect enough Democrats.

I understand preferring Sanders to Clinton and being disappointed that Clinton will be the nominee, but her positions are much, much closer to Sanders' than Trump's are, and she is clearly a better choice than Trump.

Also, keep pushing for those progressive ideas. Work and vote in the midterms. Elect progressive candidates at all levels of government. Support a progressive challenger to Clinton in 2020. It may seem like the battle's lost but the war is far from over.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:02 PM on June 7, 2016 [20 favorites]




So for a datapoint- I have friends that have been making me crazy by saying they are voting for Trump, and now some of them are saying they were "just trolling". Has anyone measured how much people fucking with pollsters may be contributing to numbers?
posted by corb at 4:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


There's nothing that says Trump has to pick a running mate. If he's crazy enough to believe he can win, he's crazy enough to believe the Senate stays red, too, and in that case, who cares? Drama around the VP choice and debates is a nice smoke screen for avoiding the presidential debates.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


It would be pretty baller if vampires were real and one of them could turn RBG. LIFETIME TERM, SUCKERS.

No, because then she would be undead, not alive. At least with traditional vampires.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:10 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any.

Hm. A key part of that argument is that it's fine to use violence against Trump and his supporters because the Russian and US military used violence against Hitler and his army.

Self-Godwinning ftw.
posted by dersins at 4:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Clinton campaign released a video

"So let's learn from the wisdom of every mother and father who teaches their daughters there is no limit on how big she can dream and how much she can achieve."

My daughter's four. You're goddam right I'm with her.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


The Clinton campaign released a video: History Made .

Damn. I wish Shirley Chisholm was around to see this. And Ann Richards (and Molly Ivins!). Oh, I wish my grandma was still here. Why did I wear so much mascara today?
posted by sallybrown at 4:12 PM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


and now some of them are saying they were "just trolling".

Too bad Paul Ryan can't use this one.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:12 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


That "Sorry Liberals" is just another example of the general awfulness of the HuffPo. I wonder how many places that PAY for content rejected that before he gave it to the one that provides "exposure".
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


corb: “Has anyone measured how much people fucking with pollsters may be contributing to numbers?”

Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight argues based on primary results that Trump Supporters Probably Aren’t Lying To Pollsters.
posted by mbrubeck at 4:15 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


"I think you'll find that it's not really concern for Europe that is causing the US government to spend the giant amounts of money it currently does on its military. Frankly, the US has the largest defense system than every other country in the world combined. Europe's safety is not going to be threatened if the US demilitarizes a little bit - however it does threaten the large profits the military-industrial complex is currently raking in. I think you'll also find that the rest of the world thinks of the US's role in the world as a bit different than "ensuring world peace.""
The rest of the world can feel secure thinking whatever the fuck it wants to think about the US's role in ensuring world peace because it currently doesn't have to divine an alternative, Trump would change that, which would change everything. This is The 2015 National Military Strategy of the United States If NATO really did have zero reason to exist, and American military commitments to the protection of Europe from Russian aggression really were an anachronism of a previous era, it could look very different and put the United States in a position of wielding a hell of a lot more influence relevant to both American interests and 'American interests' over the developing world. The US can't even get European nations to fulfill the commitments they agreed to when they signed up to NATO, and needs to expend political capital just to get Europeans to even pretend to defend themselves. Everything that NATO is drains American influence - unless you take the Russian alternative to NATO seriously.

For better or worse, a Europe that doesn't need to bow to Russian aggression and an Asia that doesn't need to bow to Chinese aggression is still the central purpose of the US military and it is still tooled in large part to deter it rather than harass developing countries towards freedom/'freedom' or use that wealth for better purposes.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:16 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Interestingly, Trump also says he does "not intend to comment on this matter any further." Are we taking bets on how long that promise will last?

Trump Orders Surrogates to Intensify Criticism of Judge and Journalists
posted by zakur at 4:21 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Blasdelb, I'm not denying that the U.S. is propping up NATO or limiting Russian/Chinese influence. I'm just saying that could be accomplished using a much smaller defense budget than it currently funds, leaving more room for healthcare and education and all that good stuff.
posted by peacheater at 4:24 PM on June 7, 2016


Alan Rappeport at The New York Times: “Donald Trump Says His Remarks on Judge Were ‘Misconstrued’”
posted by Going To Maine at 4:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I let my 3 year old press the Hillary checkbox this morning in NJ.

Democratic voter fraud, as usual.
posted by bongo_x at 4:26 PM on June 7, 2016 [40 favorites]


Jesse Benn seems to romatacize violence and revolution. These are tools of last resort, not ones that Ameicans need to turn to today.
posted by humanfont at 4:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


This male/female breakdown of campaign donor demographics is pretty interesting:

nearly 79% of Trump's donors are male
nearly 63% of Sanders' donors are male
nearly 48% of Clinton's donors are male
posted by pocketfullofrye at 4:28 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]




I'm starting to feel bad for Reince Priebus. It'll be his job to tell Trump yet again "We'd, um, appreciate it if you, um, could, um, try using different words maybe?" after every blatantly offensive thing he says and Trump will say "Yeah yeah..." and then do whatever he wants. I can't help but think of Toby on The Office trying to maintain a business environment while Michael Scott moves forward with that day's crazy idea. The guy can't do anything to him and Trump knows.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'm pretty sure I saw another real estate developing family try a similar scheme. It was the story of a wealthy family who lost everything and the one son who had no choice but to keep them all together, or something like that.
posted by zachlipton at 4:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


My sympathy goes out to Donald Trump Jr.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


BTW, in New Jersey, if you don't register with a specific party before the primaries, registered voters are able to to pick a party on the spot when they sign in with the poll workers. I didn't know this before since I am a recent NJ resident, but I learned that when you do this, you end up being enrolled with that party from that point forward.

So at my polling place today, people came to vote and were upset to find that, since they'd said they were Republicans at a previous election, the only presidential candidate they can vote for today is Trump. Some didn't even know they were registered Republicans because they didn't know that happened when they told the poll worker they were Republican last time. They went into the booth and tried to vote for Democrats, and the booth wouldn't let them.

Overheard quotes: "I don't want to vote for a lunatic" and "I'm not voting for a maniac."
posted by wondermouse at 4:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


I'm pretty sure I saw another real estate developing family try a similar scheme. It was the story of a wealthy family who lost everything and the one son who had no choice but to keep them all together, or something like that.

I could see Donald Trump admitting to "light racism."
posted by AndrewInDC at 4:41 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


This is such an interesting election, I was sure that a nomination for Hillary would lead to an automatic win for a traditionally-moderate-but-suddenly-ultraconservative Republican candidate. I thought that there's just been too much anti-Hillary conditioning over the last two decades, I couldn't think of a candidate who'd come out of the gate disliked by so many Republican and no small amount of Democrats. But there were so many of those former-moderate (and some less-so) Republicans sniping at each other that Trump stuck out more than he already would have as a d-list celebrity blowhard and blew them all out of the water. I think Hillary will beat Trump. I hope Hillary will beat Trump badly.

The thing is, I don't think many people would have been open to hearing Bernie's message if it wasn't between him, Hillary, and a total milquetoast who was gone quickly. If Joe Biden was running, as so many hoped, I'm sure a lot of these diehard Sanders supporters would have said "let's play it safe". I don't think Bernie's gruff dishevelment would seem as charming next to Smilin' Biden's well coiffed but utterly mainstream charming charm. But they didn't have him, they had someone who they already hated,and the first Democratic Socialist they'd ever listened to, and they liked what he was selling.

I'm not a fan of Clinton's, for policy reasons I won't go into, but Sanders' campaign pulled her campaign left where I think she otherwise would have gone further right of center. And because she's had to fight so hard, even with the DNC seemingly backing her hard, it feels less like a coronation or a dynasty than it would have. She earned it.

Best possible scenario for such a weird set of candidates and circumstances, for me and my left of left of center political leanings, IMHO.
posted by elr at 4:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


This is all very personal and doesn't necessarily say much about the primary season as a whole, but I'm sorta bummed today. It is historic that Clinton will be nominated, and I want to feel good right now. But I look at Facebook and I see posts about not letting the media bamboozle voters into not voting (AP), or posts that speak of voting for Clinton even though she's really really awful and corrupt, with right-wing conspiracy responses going unchecked.

And I think about how I fear sharing my support for Clinton because I'm not prepared to deal with the criticism and shitty discourse. And I want to not feel like that but I'm not sure how, at least right now.

I'm feeling fatigue. I know this all says more about me than anything else. But in a primary where the rhetoric has been so overblown, and where things have only gotten more divisive after it was mathematically sound to presume Clinton as the nominee, I find it hard to express myself and have these conversations.

I truly hope Sanders does the right thing and throws behind Clinton 100%, with specifics as to why he does. I think it will go a long way, for both his and Clinton's supporters.

(Note: I would have happily supported and voted for Sanders if he recieved the nomination. I am a bit upset about the turn his campaign took later on, though.)
posted by defenestration at 4:46 PM on June 7, 2016 [28 favorites]


This is all very personal and doesn't necessarily say much about the primary season as a whole, but I'm sorta bummed today. It is historic that Clinton will be nominated, and I want to feel good right now. But I look at Facebook and I see posts about not letting the media bamboozle voters into not voting (AP), or posts that speak of voting for Clinton even though she's really really awful and corrupt, with right-wing conspiracy responses going unchecked.

My very thin silver lining is - yeah I might get paid less and disrespected more, might not get justice or certain jobs or the same accolades as a man, and might have to listen to a lot of undeserved sexist crap about Clinton, but - lots of those people will never get to feel what I am feeling right now, at finally seeing a woman major party Presidential nominee. This is such a big feeling.
posted by sallybrown at 4:52 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


"On climate, Trump promises to let the world burn" is the Think Progress headline on my twitter feed. It can't get much worse, can it?

"On spiders, Trump promises to let them crawl all over you"
"On despair, Trump promises to make you believe that you and all you love are damned"
"On drivers who use cell phones en route, Trump promises that they will run you the fuck over"

I mean none of those really have the global heft of the original
posted by angrycat at 4:53 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


exactly one minute until this thing is ovaaaaah.
posted by Justinian at 4:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


I voted for Bernie in my state's primary, but his grouchy unwillingness to concede the nomination despite the fact that Clinton has three million more votes, is winning handily from every angle, and has been the obviously-inevitable winner for months now is really starting to sour me on him. He needs to get behind Clinton or at least get out of the fucking way so that the Democratic party can consolidate and focus its energies on defeating Trump.

Clinton didn't drop out in 2008 until June 7.
posted by Automocar at 5:00 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


“On climate, Trump promises to let the world burn” is the Think Progress headline on my twitter feed. It can't get much worse, can it?

It’s Think Progress. If they can’t come up with a new way to panic you about the right, they aren’t doing their job.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:00 PM on June 7, 2016


California folks are still voting. I mean may as well say it's over at 8PM west coast time. :)
posted by R343L at 5:01 PM on June 7, 2016


Clinton didn't drop out in 2008 until June 7.

But... that's today. I always said he should get behind Clinton after California...
posted by Justinian at 5:02 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


in 2008, June 7th was Saturday, four days after the California primary. Bernie has 3 days to be more gracious than Hillary was.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:06 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Clinton didn't drop out in 2008 until June 7.

Clinton was also only 100 delegates behind (300 counting superdelegates), and was actually ahead in the total number of votes.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:06 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


[Complaints about moderation do not belong in-thread and you all know that. Please read the prior mod notes for this thread and try to respect your mods and fellow mefites who are participating in good faith.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


[Also at this point I can RECITE when Clinton dropped out in 2008 and what the relevant numbers were and if we retread it one more time my head may explode, consider it covered ground.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [37 favorites]


Hey does anyone know if there's a way to turn off the absolutely fucking infuriating scissorlift animation on the Guardian's election results page?
posted by dersins at 5:09 PM on June 7, 2016


(I might hate that animation even more than I hate The Intercept_ 's stupid fucking underscore.)
posted by dersins at 5:10 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


maybe we should all pledge a dollar to the mod bourbon fund for every comment we've had deleted in a primary thread
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [20 favorites]


Is there a way to turn off the stupid scissorlift animations? It was cute the first 8,347 times, but I'm kinda over it now.
posted by dersins at 4:36 PM on May 17


Dear God... We've been stuck in this election so long even the tech questions are repeating.
posted by downtohisturtles at 5:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Time is a flat circle, never have I been more sure of it than in these election threads.
posted by yasaman at 5:15 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hey does anyone know if there's a way to turn off the absolutely fucking infuriating scissorlift animation

Quarter circle back. The transformation mode is ALWAYS a quarter circle back.
posted by happyroach at 5:18 PM on June 7, 2016


Support a progressive challenger to Clinton in 2020

Seems like it would be pretty weird to primary the incumbent President. Isn't that what happened in 1980 and made superdelegates a thing in the first place?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:18 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders is currently in Silverlake. I guess he really does know who his base is.
posted by Justinian at 5:18 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


I haven't spent enough time with the Grauniad's results page to know if there's anything particularly unique to their content that's keeping people there, but if you're just looking for results as they roll in without the stupid animations, the NYT has a nice non-animated page [which doesn't seem to be pay-walled at all, at least in the US].
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 5:18 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Dear God... We've been stuck in this election so long even the tech questions are repeating.

IF SOMEONE WOULD ONLY ANSWER ME I COULD STOP ASKING

Also, what are you, tracking me across political threads? Should I be worried? Flattered? Indifferent?
posted by dersins at 5:18 PM on June 7, 2016


Already see the "yeah but there are better women" contingent coming out on the Facebooks (all men, on mine). I miss the days when parents and coworkers and such weren't on Facebook and I could just say "Can you just shut the fuck up for like...12 hours, for once?"
posted by sallybrown at 5:18 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


maybe we should all pledge a dollar to the mod bourbon fund for every comment we've had deleted in a primary thread

The site isn't going to run very well if all the mods are in the hospital being treated for alcohol poisoning.
posted by jeather at 5:20 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


sallybrown: filters!
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:20 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Odd result of WA's ridiculous caucus system: because I had to file an absentee affidavit rather than showing up in person, I have actual evidence of having supported Hillary Clinton during the primary.

All my other votes just went off into some box somewhere. This one is scanned into my computer for posterity.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:20 PM on June 7, 2016


Seems like it would be pretty weird to primary the incumbent President. Isn't that what happened in 1980 and made superdelegates a thing in the first place?

Plot twist: Bernie runs as a Republican!
posted by Talez at 5:22 PM on June 7, 2016


As dumb as CNN is, racist shithead Jeffery Lord is getting thrashed by literally two full tables of pundits on CNN right now and it's really fun.
posted by qnarf at 5:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump only has 6 flags behind his podium tonight. That's 13 flags less than Clinton used. It follows that Clinton is 13 flags better.
posted by Justinian at 5:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Six Flags Over Bigotry, then?
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


Trump will be using a teleprompter tonight, which he almost never does. He knows he has to get on point, quickly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:36 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Guaranteed to make you sick to your stomach!
posted by nicepersonality at 5:36 PM on June 7, 2016


roomthreeseventeen, Trump only uses the best telepromters [sic].
posted by stolyarova at 5:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump will be using a teleprompter tonight

lol. Mere days after mocking Clinton for using one? The late night jokes and tweets write themselves.
posted by yasaman at 5:38 PM on June 7, 2016


wasn't his only response to HRC's foreign policy speech the effective rebuttal, "she used a teleprompter" spelled weirdly, or am I misremembering
posted by angrycat at 5:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC reporting that Sanders will go to Vermont, and then from there to campaign in Washington, D.C. for their primary.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:39 PM on June 7, 2016


yaas yasaman
posted by angrycat at 5:39 PM on June 7, 2016


You are correct, angrycat.

@realDonaldTrump

In Crooked Hillary's telepromter speech yesterday, she made up things that I said or believe but have no basis in fact. Not honest!

6:13 AM - 3 Jun 2016
posted by stolyarova at 5:41 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC reporting that Sanders will go to Vermont, and then from there to campaign in Washington, D.C. for their primary.

NPR is reporting the same thing.
They're also talking about how Sanders supporters they've talked to in the CA campaign don't care what the numbers are because they don't trust the system.
I'm starting to think it'll take all summer to undo the damage done by the Sanders campaign's constant rhetoric of unfairness and stolen races.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


Funny thing is, if you had told me in 1998 that I'd vote in an election where one of the possibilities before the general was anyone with the word 'socialist' in his description, I would've been over the moon, though if you followed that up with 'And at the end of the general, you're really exited about the possibilities of the intelligence, perseverance, and diligence of ... Hillary Clinton!' I would have thought you were insane.

And yet, here we are - and honestly, I am excited about the presumptive nominee: by all accounts she's hardworking, breathtakingly intelligent and a unabashed policy wonk. She'll also get to nominate two or more justices to the SC, and the primary, while bruising, served to pull her a bit to the left, which is fine by me.

Why all the sturm und drang? We've got a good candidate, we've got a gift of an opponent, and we're coming in from two terms of a beloved (and politically canny) predecessor. We've got the first opportunity in many years to really get the country on the most solidly progressive path since FDR.
posted by eclectist at 5:46 PM on June 7, 2016 [56 favorites]


Nu nee nu nee nu nee nu...what's going on in here everyone? Sorry I'm late, I had the day off and spent it capturing spiders and releasing them into the yard. Boring thread so far? Everyone got a beverage?
posted by vrakatar at 5:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Prince Geoffrey: My you chivalric fool...as if the way one fell down mattered.
Prince Richard: When the fall is all there is, it matters.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Renee Ellmers lost. I remember her doing something exceptionally odious and can't even remember what it was. Compared Obamacare to... something really offensive? Was that it? Anyway, she lost her primary.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:50 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]




I remember her doing something exceptionally odious and can't even remember what it was.

Well whatever it was, now you'll remember her for this.
posted by waitingtoderail at 5:53 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


My mother tells me that she was interviewed by an Italian news service after she voted. Apparently, they didn't research the politics of Orange County, CA before they arrived, because they hadn't been able to figure out why everyone (er, except my mother) was voting for Trump.
posted by thomas j wise at 5:54 PM on June 7, 2016


Come on New Jersey, try to count faster than Puerto Rico. They had no money and a quarter the polling places they needed. Try to keep up.
posted by Justinian at 5:54 PM on June 7, 2016


So Trump's magic endorsement was meaningless? Hmmm Does not bode well for him.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:55 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Come on New Jersey, try to count faster than Puerto Rico. They had no money and a quarter the polling places they needed. Try to keep up.

[inserts joke about Fort Lee]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:57 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Lifelong Democrat here. I wept over Muskie and voted for Dukakis.

Listen, I like Bernie Sanders, and I have been a union member, and I totally support everything he stands for.

But I have watched, over the years, the utter man-hate thrown at Hillary, both in her role as First Lady and as her career has gone upward, and nothing has stuck. To whit: someone complaining about her outfit. Do MEN ever get that thrown at them? Does Donald Trump, for all of his error of his ways, have anyone question the cost of his outfit?

Come on. It's just like Obama. The racist proles hated the thought of a Black president. And the same people can't stand the thought of a female president.

I was there when Geraldine Ferraro ran for VP and witnessed the sheer hatred at the thought that a woman could hold an office that high. It really affected me as a young woman.

This is politics. A woman might lead the United States. And I say it's about time a woman leads these old boys in Congress. Let Bernie pull her to the left, sure but don't ever kid yourself that she is unqualified due to her gender. I have been waiting for this moment for my entire life, and if you want to shit on her, go ahead but she is going to be the next President of the United States, whether you like it or not.

America: Dragging people into the next century, one election at a time.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 6:00 PM on June 7, 2016 [60 favorites]


Whoa that Renee Ellmer video is something. How did she ever get elected?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:01 PM on June 7, 2016


This is the same party which has nominated Donald J Trump, billionaire to be its standard bearer. Do you really need to ask?
posted by Justinian at 6:03 PM on June 7, 2016




Trump walks out tonight to "We Are the Champions." Because nothing says Trump like Freddie Mercury shouting "no time for losers!"

Now he's thanking people from states where the polls haven't closed yet.
posted by zachlipton at 6:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


NJ just got called for Hillary Clinton. Donald J Trump, billionaire, is simultaneously on stage in front of his puny six flags giving a speech widely expected to focus primarily on hitting back at Clinton after her speech last week.
posted by Justinian at 6:08 PM on June 7, 2016


Republicans know they can't win a legitimate election so purging voter rolls is totes a great strategy for making states they might lose more competitive.

Of course even if they win Ohio (haha) they are going to lose Florida and let's be honest Virginia is quickly becoming a blue state and that's before giving former felons the right to vote again.
posted by vuron at 6:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump is reading off his teleprompter and sneaking in his little side comments.
posted by zutalors! at 6:09 PM on June 7, 2016


Hey does anyone know if there's a way to turn off the absolutely fucking infuriating scissorlift animation on the Guardian's election results page?

This is even more enraging than I thought possible and really must be seen to be believed.
posted by lalex at 6:09 PM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


Trump to Bernie supporters: We welcome you with open arms.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:09 PM on June 7, 2016


Is Trump looking extra orange tonight, or is my TV off?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:10 PM on June 7, 2016


Ivanka doesn't look like a happy camper. It must have been a rough couple of days in Trumpster Fire land.
posted by Justinian at 6:11 PM on June 7, 2016


"To all of those Bernie Sanders folks who have been left out by a rigged system with superdelegates, we welcome you with open arms."

This. Right here. Is how Sanders has been self-defeating these past few weeks.
posted by zachlipton at 6:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [28 favorites]


Ivanka looks...worried? Reluctant? They should put the younger daughter behind him, she's all in and super smug.
posted by zutalors! at 6:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah if nothing else I hope to hear Bernie throw that offer back at trump like the toxic crap it is.
posted by chapps at 6:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Is Trump looking extra orange tonight, or is my TV off?"

If your TV is off and you're still seeing Trump, call the police. IT'S COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [31 favorites]


TURN HIM OFF. Watch an old movie.
posted by vrakatar at 6:12 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


If Melania tries she might be able to edge another foot away from Trump.
posted by Justinian at 6:14 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


In other news, while Trump is talking, this 87 year old man just graduated from college.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:14 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


If Melania tries she might be able to edge another foot away from Trump.
'Yeah, she's not even in the whole frame.
posted by zutalors! at 6:15 PM on June 7, 2016


Trump says he's giving a major "everything wrong with the Clintons" speech next week, not that this speech is much different.
posted by zachlipton at 6:15 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Jeez eyebrows we were thinking the same thing, in a different manner.
posted by vrakatar at 6:16 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


But we already have a list of All the Terrible Things Hillary Clinton Has Done in print! And it's glorious!

Honestly, the GOP has been trying to prove that Hillary Clinton is a werewolf for literally my entire adult life. They've failed. At this point, even if she really is a werewolf, I'm totally comfortable with it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:18 PM on June 7, 2016 [31 favorites]


Ivanka and Melania both look like hostages, much as Christie did.
posted by carmicha at 6:18 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump says he's giving a major "everything wrong with the Clintons" speech next week

I'm sure Clinton is totally quaking in her fucking boots.
posted by dersins at 6:19 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Trump says he's giving a major "everything wrong with the Clintons" speech next week, not that this speech is much different.

Hillary needs to do an "Everything Right with the Trumps" speech in response.
Good evening, everyone.

That Melania seems nice, right? And the kids? They seem OK, don't they?

Thank you, good night.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:19 PM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


What is No PPP?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:19 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


And is she 'likeable'? Who the hell cares?

Some recent examples where I thought she was likeable:
Bartender skit on Saturday Night Live
Jimmy Kimmel Mansplains to Hillary Clinton
404 page (can you imagine Trump doing anything self-deprecating?)
posted by kirkaracha at 6:20 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


His speechwriters don't know how to write for him, these sentences are too long and, uh, crafted to sound believably Trump.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:20 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think he meant TPP? But who knows, the teleprompter has not made him more comprehensible
posted by chapps at 6:20 PM on June 7, 2016


At this point, even if she really is a werewolf, I'm totally comfortable with it.

I mean, Oz wasn't so bad.
posted by Salieri at 6:21 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


Is Trump so stupid he doesn't understand the connotations of the phrase "America First" or is he being deliberate?
posted by Justinian at 6:21 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


He's surely going off the promptly. He just said America was "suffering bigly"
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:21 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


"the jobs have been stripped from our country like we're babies"
posted by zutalors! at 6:22 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


He really sounds like Frank Underwood
posted by zutalors! at 6:22 PM on June 7, 2016


Is Trump so stupid he doesn't understand the connotations of the phrase "America First" or is he being deliberate?

It's... it's hard to say really.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:22 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


"America First" is an actual dogwhistle. That's downright subtle for Trump.
posted by zachlipton at 6:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


where are you watching this trainwreck
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:23 PM on June 7, 2016


I am not watching the speech on TV and I honestly can't tell if you guys are quoting Trump or joking around.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


Ha Brian Williams also wrote down the babies quote.
posted by zutalors! at 6:24 PM on June 7, 2016


"the jobs have been stripped from our country like we're babies"

TRUMP OPPOSES CHILD LABOR LAWS
posted by tonycpsu at 6:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


No he definitely said "America First" a bunch of times.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:26 PM on June 7, 2016


Okay then, KEEP WATCHING!
posted by vrakatar at 6:26 PM on June 7, 2016


I wish I could tell you that we were joking around. I wish I could tell you that. God help us all, I can't.
posted by Justinian at 6:26 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


No jokes. It just ended. I've been told that Clinton is speaking at 10pm Eastern on a news network near you.
posted by zachlipton at 6:26 PM on June 7, 2016


I still want to hear him explain the "save money and number one!" comment. Like, "save... number one" the way Howard Hughes saved number one...?
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 6:26 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Welp, I just got the "tonight we made history" fundraising email from the Clinton campaign. She's owning it.
posted by dersins at 6:26 PM on June 7, 2016


He really shouldn't do this teleprompter and prepared speech thing. (I mean, he should, because I want him to lose, but.) It sucks away all of his creamsicle charisma.
posted by sallybrown at 6:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Next Trump hat message: BRING BACK JOBS FOR BABIES.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Bigly" isn't a word though. I'm sure of it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's a perfectly cromulent word.
posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on June 7, 2016 [25 favorites]


I listened to it on my replica Philco radio which is really the best way to hear a nativist demagogue yell about America First
posted by theodolite at 6:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


"Bigly" isn't a word though. I'm sure of it.

But you knew what he meant, right?

THAT'S RIGHT MY NON-PRESCRIPTIVISM EXTENDS EVEN TO FUCKFACE J. TRUMP, THOUSANDAIRE
posted by dersins at 6:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [20 favorites]


My Hillary email is telling me it's My Time to Shine because Hillary emails are never not like my mom.
posted by zutalors! at 6:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


A bigly spirit ennoblicates the highmost wall.
posted by 0xFCAF at 6:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]


TRUMP/BIGLY 2016
posted by vrakatar at 6:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Can someone clue me in on the significance of the "America First" dogwhistle?
posted by Ipsifendus at 6:31 PM on June 7, 2016


Do not misunderestimate him!
posted by rtha at 6:31 PM on June 7, 2016


After the rightwing cesspool made reading off teleprompter "a thing", they now have a candidate that literally cannot make it through a speech without saying something (a) racist (b) batshit insane (c) unbelievably ignorant of how the government and/or the world economy works or even is (d) or most likely all of the above at once; without reading word for word from a teleprompter speech undoubtedly written by Reince Pribus' staff.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:32 PM on June 7, 2016




Clinton is holding an 8 points lead in South Dakota with 40% in. That's unexpected.

Ipsifendus: America First Party.
posted by Justinian at 6:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hey even werewolf Americans deserve representation too you guys.
posted by emjaybee at 6:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


On a more serious note, I think the most worrying thing in that speech was when he was talking about how the entire political system is rigged and worthless and incapable of ever solving problems. Because that's the classic setup for (a) if he wins, dismantling the constitutional apparatus of the state or (b) if he loses, inciting his followers to reject the results and take matters into their own hands
posted by theodolite at 6:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


What's amazing is that this is the moment where most candidates would lay out an opening statement for the rest of the campaign. This speech consisted of Clinton attacks and vague "I'll never stop fighting for you" statements that would be at home from the 3rd place runner-up in the 4th grade class representative election. As an opening statement, it removes any lingering doubt that there's any sort of an agenda or point from Trump in our future.
posted by zachlipton at 6:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I kind of hope Hillary is a werewolf.


President Lady Werewolf? How awesome would that be?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 6:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


According to infuriatingscissorlifts.com, Sanders is leading Clinton by a substantial margin in North Dakota with 27.6% of precincts reporting.

The vote count is currently 71 - 34.

So, not a lot of Democrats in NoDak, I guess.
posted by dersins at 6:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


"We will take care of our African Americans" was another gem
posted by zutalors! at 6:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


classic setup for (a) if he wins, dismantling the constitutional apparatus of the state once he's elected or (b) if he loses, inciting his followers to reject the results and take matters into their own hands

I think it has already been clear that these are both likely outcomes.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:36 PM on June 7, 2016


YOU’RE IN THE BIGLY
WHEN YOU’RE INTO BIGLY CHEW

(For all you Millennials in the crowd: there used to be a brand of bubble gum called “Big League Chew” that came shredded in pouches, just like the chewing tobacco baseball players used. No, really. It was advertised during cartoons and everything.)
posted by nicepersonality at 6:36 PM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


What Hillary Imagines:
So I asked for her own pick.

And her answer was: if she could go into the past to tell someone that she’d been nominated for President of the United States, it would be her mother.

Dorothy Rodham had an auspicious date of birth — June 4, 1919, the very same day the Senate passed a constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote. But otherwise, she had a terrible beginning. Her parents abandoned her. At 8, she was riding across the country, unaccompanied except for her younger sister, on the way to live with grandparents who didn’t want them. She went off on her own at 14, working as a housekeeper during the Depression. But she got herself through high school, was a good student and raised her own daughter to believe the sky was the limit.

Before we head off on the rest of this deeply imperfect election, take a second and enjoy. Imagine Hillary Clinton going back in time. She sits in the train next to a frightened little girl, and delivers the news about what happened this week.
posted by sallybrown at 6:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [137 favorites]


When I hear America First, I think Britain First.
posted by corb at 6:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


(b) if he loses, inciting his followers to reject the results and take matters into their own hands

It's never too early to lay the foundation for your "Stab In the Back" narrative.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:37 PM on June 7, 2016


North Dakota is the only caucus today.
posted by peeedro at 6:37 PM on June 7, 2016


Dammit sallybrown, I thought I was done crying.
posted by cooker girl at 6:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


TRUMP/BIGLY 2016

“A perfectly cromulent campaign”
posted by Going To Maine at 6:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Seriously?!? The mother of the first woman President was born on the day that women got the vote? That's awesome.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [44 favorites]


Yeah and I cried a lot about the 9/11 Golden Retriever Search and Rescue dog already.
posted by zutalors! at 6:40 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


What Hillary Imagines

Okay, as happy as I am about all this, nothing had gotten me choked up and teary-eyed until I read that. Wow.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:40 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]




Nice Personality, you can still get Big League Chew, at least at Economy Candy in Manhattan! Jim Bouton, of Ball Four fame, is part of the company that invented it!
posted by AJaffe at 6:41 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


According to the Wikipedia, Dorothy Rodham's little sister, Isabelle Howell, is still alive.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:42 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


That gum I like has come back in style!
posted by nicepersonality at 6:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Seriously?!? The mother of the first woman President was born on the day that women got the vote? That's awesome.

I LOVE goosebump-y historical coincidences like this.

my favorite: there's a portrait of a big group of Atlantans dressed up in period costumes who performed for the world premiere of Gone With the Wind in 1939. one part of this group were young boys from the Ebenezer Baptist Church choir dressed up as enslaved children. one of the children in the picture was Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted by sallybrown at 6:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


If you do get Big League Chew grape flavor is best.

-Sincerely, 8-year-old Me
posted by emjaybee at 6:44 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


ew grape.
posted by vrakatar at 6:45 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Apparently Clinton is winning the Democratic popular vote by a wider margin than any candidate since 1980.

Obviously not all the votes are in, so who knows if that will hold -- just an interesting counter to the prevailing "unpopular" narrative.

(Also bear in mind that many millions of votes are yet to come in comparing Democratic voter turnout this year to previous years)
posted by pocketfullofrye at 6:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


"We will take care of our African Americans" was another gem

Wait like in what sense of the expression "take care of"?
posted by Sara C. at 6:51 PM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


I wasn't tracking you dersins. Just making a dumb joke. I remembered people talking about that in one of the previous threads and was greatly amused to find out it was the same person.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:51 PM on June 7, 2016


For all you Millennials in the crowd: there used to be a brand of bubble gum called “Big League Chew” that came shredded in pouches, just like the chewing tobacco baseball players used. No, really. It was advertised during cartoons and everything.

They still have this! I saw it at the dollar store the other day.
posted by dirigibleman at 6:51 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Better yet, what sense of "our"?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:52 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


My mom would never let me have that gum and I didn't get why because I was so sheltered from tobacco products I didn't even know chewing tobacco existed.
posted by Sara C. at 6:53 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton is winning the Democratic popular vote by a wider margin than any candidate since 1980.

Per the graph in that tweet, 1992 and 1988 were also won by wider margins.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:53 PM on June 7, 2016


Ready
posted by cashman at 6:54 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wait like in what sense of the expression 'take care of'?

"Take care of?"
posted by kirkaracha at 6:54 PM on June 7, 2016


I believe they're adding Brown and Tsongas together for 1992, and Clinton's lead will be bigger than 1988 after tonight.
posted by Justinian at 6:55 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I never watch cable news, and here I am glued to the TV flipping back and forth between CNN and MSNBC waiting for Clinton to appear. This is history, people!

also I now want some Big League Chew even though it inevitably loses its taste after like five minutes and you keep stuffing more and more into your mouth until you're trying to chew the entire bag at once
posted by Salieri at 6:56 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


ccan someone please tell me where a Canadian with no TV can watch Clinton fire it up
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:57 PM on June 7, 2016


I appear to have touched a nerve so is this the wrong time to admit I preferred Bubble Tape?
posted by nicepersonality at 6:57 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


I am a millennial and remember seeing Big League Chew at the grocery checkout lanes and begging my mom to get me one... fucker was two dollars in 1993!!! THAT WAS EXPENSIVE, MY CHILD!!!
posted by lineofsight at 6:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


also I now want some Big League Chew even though it inevitably loses its taste after like five minutes and you keep stuffing more and more into your mouth until you're trying to chew the entire bag at once

is there another way to eat it?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


ccan someone please tell me where a Canadian with no TV can watch Clinton fire it up

Try this!
posted by Salieri at 6:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ugh, I can still taste Bubble Tape if I close my eyes.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


I know I'd have to stay up till dawn to see this, but I'd love to see a breakdown of all the voting in California tonight, sliced every possible way. Totals on both sides and then for all the demographics. That will be the tea leaves to read.
posted by vrakatar at 7:00 PM on June 7, 2016


Thanks Salieri! Protip: TURN OFF THE CHAT
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:01 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Only three flags for Clinton tonight, but they are SUPER BIG.
posted by Justinian at 7:01 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm surprisingly excited for Clinton's speech. This is, as our VP would say, a big fucking deal, and the contrast between what we just heard from Trump and what I can only imagine is about to happen will make it that much sweeter.
posted by zachlipton at 7:01 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


did u kno

if you are trying to make a candy pizza and you put big league chew on top like shredded cheese you will start a fire in the toaster oven and be sent to bed in disgrace
posted by poffin boffin at 7:02 PM on June 7, 2016 [72 favorites]


BUBBLE TAPE NO!
VOTE BAZOOKA JOE!
posted by vrakatar at 7:03 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I love that the music rn is a woman singing "we can be heroes!"
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:04 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


#NeverDubbleBubble
posted by sporkwort at 7:04 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


i think you can start a fire in a toaster oven just by looking at it sideways.
posted by zutalors! at 7:05 PM on June 7, 2016


(I bought Bazooka Joe for the comics, but real talk: that gum was Ter. Rib. Ble. Worse than the gum you’d get with your Halloween candy. Possibly even worse than the gum that came in the packs of Garbage Pail Kids.)
posted by nicepersonality at 7:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


OMG, Bazooka Joe is the worst. BONKERS 4 LIFE.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Fruit Stripe!
posted by AJaffe at 7:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


My family's doctor as a kid always gave me a piece of Bazooka Joe at the end of the checkup. I'm pretty sure it was the same bag of gum he pulled them out of for the entire 18 years.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:09 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I was never angrier as a child than when someone asked me if I wanted candy and when I said yes, handed me gum.

Burn all gum.
posted by sallybrown at 7:09 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


HRC is still up 6 in South Dakota with 67% in. That would be crushing for Sanders. Not mathematically obviously but if he can't even win in South Dakota?
posted by Justinian at 7:10 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


I used to actually chew the gum that came with baseball cards.
posted by waitingtoderail at 7:10 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


yeah, gum is stupid. Cigarettes however...
posted by vrakatar at 7:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


[Okay enough gum nostalgia.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


aww but mom
posted by poffin boffin at 7:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [21 favorites]


But Mooooooommmmm, waiting is SO HARD!
posted by cooker girl at 7:13 PM on June 7, 2016


Both James Carville and Hugh Hewitt said tonight on MSNBC that they still think there could be a non-Trump GOP nominee.
posted by sallybrown at 7:13 PM on June 7, 2016


Let's be honest Eyebrows McGee. The gum thing is so much better than "Your candidate sucks and you suck for supporting a sucky candidate who sucks" for the 1000th time.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


Protip: TURN OFF THE CHAT
seconded
posted by Golem XIV at 7:14 PM on June 7, 2016


I just attended the launch party for Pat McCarthy for the Washington State Auditor. The current office holder is under indictment. She's the only candidate of five (the rest are men) whose actually been an auditor. It's a down ballot race of course and no one "cares" about them except when governance sucks. So I was pretty jazzed to hear former Governor Christine Gregoire and Rep. Judy Clibborn give their endorsements. It's a good year for highly competent women.
posted by R343L at 7:14 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Just fyi, the youtube stream is about 30-45 seconds behind live.
posted by cashman at 7:15 PM on June 7, 2016


(here we go)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:16 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Let's be honest Eyebrows McGee. The gum thing is so much better than "Your candidate sucks and you suck for supporting a sucky candidate who sucks" for the 1000th time.

Starting a gum control debate is probably going to end up taking this thread to MetaTalk.
posted by cjelli at 7:16 PM on June 7, 2016 [50 favorites]




watching the livestream, they're running the History video released earlier today. the crowd is going bonkers. i've got chills.
posted by palomar at 7:20 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sara Bareilles? Noooooooooo.
posted by Justinian at 7:22 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


My 16-year-old daughter burst into tears during the History video.
posted by cooker girl at 7:22 PM on June 7, 2016 [23 favorites]


I'm thinking back on the back-and-forth in the previous election thread (or was it the one before?) about how a lot of Clinton supporters refrained from speaking out on Facebook because of the backlash they'd received, or at least the backlash they feared they'd receive.

Anyway, I'm thinking about it because my entire Facebook feed is suddenly filled with people going fucking nuts with happy about Hillary Clinton's assured path to the nomination. It's really nice.
posted by duffell at 7:22 PM on June 7, 2016 [28 favorites]


I seem to be having similar allergy problems right now that normally only hit me during the second at of Hamilton.
posted by zachlipton at 7:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


OMG BILL
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:23 PM on June 7, 2016


Pleaaaaaase end this as the campaign song pleasssseeeeee
posted by sallybrown at 7:23 PM on June 7, 2016


Wow. Never thought I'd see this in my lifetime. First a black man now a woman?!
As a black woman, I have no words!
posted by ramix at 7:24 PM on June 7, 2016 [37 favorites]


I am fully crying, you guys.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:24 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Man, I'm this emotional now. When she wins the fucking presidency I'm going to lose it. Happysob.
posted by lydhre at 7:24 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


the sheer JOY on her face
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


I've been afraid I wouldn't see this in my lifetime. Long time coming.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


As a black woman, I have no words!

You're next.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


My 19-year-old son: "I think it's great that Democrats keep making history while Republicans keep nominating white men."
posted by cooker girl at 7:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [47 favorites]


Y'all, I can't explain my tears except to say that in all the years since she's died, I've never missed my mother more than I do right this second.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [30 favorites]


OMG glass ceiling mention. I'm going to have red eyes by the time I go to bed.
posted by Salieri at 7:26 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh God, the live comment thread on Youtube.
posted by waitingtoderail at 7:26 PM on June 7, 2016


Brooklyn represent.
posted by vrakatar at 7:26 PM on June 7, 2016


I don't cry. Except right now.

Wow.
posted by bearwife at 7:26 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


HA HA EVERY TIME SHE SAYS "WOMEN AND MEN" WITH WOMEN FIRST IT GIVES ME FUCKING LIFE
posted by poffin boffin at 7:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [62 favorites]


My mom still claims she hates Hillary and she is still going nuts with joy right now. These feelings are so complex.
posted by sallybrown at 7:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


Her sheer joy when she came out on that stage, it's hard not to connect with that.
posted by zutalors! at 7:28 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


Very nice congratulation of Sanders, with vigorous cheering from the crowd.
posted by Salieri at 7:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


MADAM FUCKING PRESIDENT
posted by lydhre at 7:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]


I wasn't going to break out champagne because it's a school night, yet here we are.
posted by zutalors! at 7:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [20 favorites]


ok i guess this makes up for costa rica losing so gruesomely tonight to the us
posted by poffin boffin at 7:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


"As your president, I will always have your back."

HELL FUCKING YES. I believe it.
posted by yasaman at 7:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


"I hear you... And as your President I will always have your back."

sob
posted by bearwife at 7:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


This history nerd is BEAMING at the Seneca Falls reference. I'm sitting at a restaurant eating pizza and crying.
posted by mynameisluka at 7:31 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


remember what unites us: WE ALL HATE DONALD TRUMP
posted by poffin boffin at 7:31 PM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


Anyone catch what that person was shouting?
posted by dumbland at 7:31 PM on June 7, 2016


"Bridges are better than walls" is a good slogan. Let's do that.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:31 PM on June 7, 2016 [47 favorites]


Could anyone tell what that heckler said?
posted by stolyarova at 7:32 PM on June 7, 2016


Bridges are better than walls.

motherfucking BOOM
posted by cooker girl at 7:32 PM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


"Bridges are better than walls."

HELL FUCKING YES. MADAM PRESIDENT.
posted by Salieri at 7:32 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


bridges better than walls. Simple and elegant.
posted by vrakatar at 7:32 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh boy. She's going for it now.
posted by Jalliah at 7:33 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


TESTIFY.
posted by vrakatar at 7:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ohhhhhhhh, I'm here for this. Yes I am. Tear it up, Madam Prez.
posted by palomar at 7:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh the rage behind her eyes....I cannot wait for her to eviscerate Trump in a debate.
posted by cooker girl at 7:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


She's pulling no punches. Just calling out everything on Trump. I've been a Hillary supporter this whole cycle. This makes me enthusiastic.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 7:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


I haven't been a big fan of Hillary's presidential campaigns so far but I have to say that she is absolutely killing this speech.
posted by lalex at 7:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


Oh, it is on. It is so very on. It may not be possible for it to be more on.
posted by mhum at 7:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


Congratulations America, this is how to be great.
posted by valetta at 7:36 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


I see a brave well armed Knight on a white steed with a long sharp well honed lance. She's awesome.
posted by bearwife at 7:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


"To be great, we cannot be small."

Nice subtle dig at Trump's hands, there.
posted by duffell at 7:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [23 favorites]


I'm still dreaming of Clinton kicking off her first debate with Trump by skipping the intro, turning straight to him, and saying with narrowed eyes, "I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me."
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [37 favorites]


*salutes*


GOD SAVE PRESIDENT LADY WEREWOLF!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [20 favorites]


A Sanders concession and Obama endorsement tomorrow would be a very good follow up.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:38 PM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


Prez nominees 1789-2016
🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶🚶💃
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:38 PM on June 7, 2016 [66 favorites]


You can really tell how much she means this. Like, the fact of Trump and what he represents for the country repels her on a visceral level.

This is awesome.
posted by Salieri at 7:38 PM on June 7, 2016 [23 favorites]


omgilovehersomuch
posted by chaoticgood at 7:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Book plug!

But yeah, she's totally nailing this speech. Finally! This is the candidate I've wanted all cycle.
posted by The Bellman at 7:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Give Bernie 24-48. And she should wrap it up now. oh hell yeah bully reference.
posted by vrakatar at 7:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh that tribute to her mom. And her amazing birthdate.
posted by bearwife at 7:40 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Folks, I'm on a tenuous mobile data connection and I can't watch the video and I just want you to know how much y'all are KILLING ME HORRIBLY RIGHT NOW
posted by saturday_morning at 7:41 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


Canadian here who has been actively only paying cursory attention to the election so far. (enough to know in general what's going on but not watching too much or reading the threads here).

Have her speeches been like this through her campaign or is this Hilary kicking it up a notch? This is pretty awesome.
posted by Jalliah at 7:42 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


God I really wish she would win all 50 states. Just roast Donald like the pig he is.
posted by sallybrown at 7:42 PM on June 7, 2016 [19 favorites]


Jalliah, this is new and more pointed.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hillary please bring the senate to DC with you
posted by madamjujujive at 7:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think her speeches this campaign have always been awesome. And she ALWAYS mentions women.
posted by zutalors! at 7:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I love that she's up there on her own in the middle of the crowd. No family, no aides, no flag backdrop. Just her and her supporters.
posted by zachlipton at 7:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Coincidentally, I had this open in another tab: "The L.A. 'village' that raised Hillary Clinton's mother", an article from the LA Times in 2008 detailing part of Hillary Clinton's mom's early life. Spoiler alert: it was pretty rough. I can't believe she's been in the public eye as long as she has without this part of her biography being more well-known.
posted by mhum at 7:44 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Have her speeches been like this through her campaign or is this Hilary kicking it up a notch?

This is her kicking it up a few notches. I am finally feeling the feels I desperately wanted to feel!
posted by lalex at 7:44 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


I also love how much Chelsea clearly adores her mom.
posted by zutalors! at 7:44 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Is it me, or is Brian Williams kind of a dick?
posted by The Bellman at 7:45 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


GREAT SPEECH. And now my Bear and I are both in tears.

Thrilled to have lived to see this.
posted by bearwife at 7:45 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


anyway back to the football
posted by poffin boffin at 7:45 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


HillaryRubbingHerHandsWithGlee.gif!!!
posted by acidic at 7:45 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


holy shit

holy a million shits

She is like a bajillion percent on the warpath and I almost feel sorry for Trump. He has no idea how thoroughly he is going to be eviscerated.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:45 PM on June 7, 2016 [23 favorites]


What specific thing has Brian Williams said?
posted by zachlipton at 7:46 PM on June 7, 2016


"Jumped out like a cougar! Jumped out like wow!" Chris Matthews

(I do love his bizarre characterizations sometimes.)
posted by sallybrown at 7:47 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also Chris Matthews just called HRC a cougar. Really Chris? Really? Come on, guys. Just give Rachel the network and get the hell off the air.
posted by The Bellman at 7:47 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


"...It is always good to practice situational awareness around AP bureaus and offices." — AP reminds employees to be vigilant after backlash from Sanders supporters.

I won't be answering calls from unknown numbers today, after third call from Bernie supporters telling me they'd hunt me down in the streets.Amy Chozick, NYT
posted by My Dad at 7:47 PM on June 7, 2016


She should co-opt the soundbite of Reagan saying "TEAR DOWN THIS WALL" and pair it with the footage of the actual wall coming down. The Berlin Wall. For a tv spot. Help me flesh that out. Lets get the last of the moderate republicans on board.
posted by vrakatar at 7:47 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


holy shit

holy a million shits

She is like a bajillion percent on the warpath and I almost feel sorry for Trump. He has no idea how thoroughly he is going to be eviscerated.


My thoughts too. Mouth actually dropped open. Freaked me out in a good way.
posted by Jalliah at 7:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think Matthews was calling the comment "Cougar." Not Hillary. But yeah they can give the network to Maddow, as long as they keep Chris Hayes.
posted by zutalors! at 7:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


How fun is it gonna be to watch her be so competent against him for the next few months?
posted by glhaynes at 7:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Hey does anyone know if there's a way to turn off the absolutely fucking infuriating scissorlift animation on the Guardian's election results page?
posted by dersins at 8:09 PM on June 7 [+] [!]

This is even more enraging than I thought possible and really must be seen to be believed.
posted by lalex at 9:09 PM on June 7 [7 favorites +] [!]


IMPORTANT UPDATE: I am now in love with them.
posted by lalex at 7:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


Per the graph in that tweet, 1992 and 1988 were also won by wider margins.


Ah I mis-worded that. She has a higher percentage of the Democratic popular vote than any candidate since 1980 (caveats about not all votes being in, of course, still apply).
posted by pocketfullofrye at 7:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cried the whole time. So excited!!
posted by SarahElizaP at 7:49 PM on June 7, 2016


Hey, by the way, thank you New Jersey.
posted by zutalors! at 7:49 PM on June 7, 2016


I've been a Bernie supporter throughout the primaries - all the way up until this speech tonight. Now I'm all in for Hillary. That was incredibly inspiring.
posted by MsVader at 7:50 PM on June 7, 2016 [40 favorites]


I'm thrilled that my grandmother is alive to see this. I'm thrilled that my niece who turns six tomorrow and has big goals of ruling the world may not ever think that she can't be president because girls can't be in charge.

I cannot tell you how much I'm looking forward to the debates. My liver is apprehensive, but my heart sings a warrior's song. I may have already been into the wine. Tra la la, it's a good day to be alive.
posted by palomar at 7:50 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


What specific thing has Brian Williams said?

Nothing specific, he's just felt really grudging about this all night. Complaining about the HRC lead-in film, sniping about the crowd, etc. I don't have much exposure to him, and I may well be projecting, but he just doesn't feel appropriately on board with the history of the moment, given that he's an MSNBC anchor. It's probably just me.
posted by The Bellman at 7:51 PM on June 7, 2016


We only could tune in at the end. Running the live stream back.

(Also side note: those poor folks in the bleechers behind the stage waving flags for hours.)
posted by R343L at 7:51 PM on June 7, 2016


I'm also a huge Bernie supporter who has serious issues with Clinton's foreign policy ideas, but whatever, choo choo, I'm on board. Let's go.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:51 PM on June 7, 2016 [55 favorites]


There is no way in hell that Trump can hold a stage like Hillary can. He's an incompetent buffoon.
posted by yesster at 7:52 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Brian Williams is probably depressed that he's still stuck in purgatory atoning for his sins on MSNBC.
posted by Justinian at 7:52 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


The people united shall never be defeated.
posted by vrakatar at 7:52 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Can I get Choo Choo on a t shirt
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:52 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


I loved that so much. I loved how she reached out to all of America - Sanders supporters, Republicans, Independents - with a clear challenge of "we are stronger together and we can be better than this".

That was exactly the right tone to take. There's a wonderful sense of optimism there - yes, standing against Trump and the way he wants to drag the country backward, but clearly signaling a moving *forward* as well. Like, you're of the past, Donald. We're going into our future without you and won't let you get in the way, so stand aside.
posted by Salieri at 7:53 PM on June 7, 2016 [19 favorites]


What a beautiful goddamn speech! Suck on that Trump-- she has the best words and you sir are a LOSER.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:53 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


Tested up reading Little Engine That Could book to my daughter tonight is why
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:53 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think after his appearances on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Brian Williams got it into his head that he is funny, and it hasn't really served him well since.
posted by AndrewInDC at 7:53 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


Can I get Choo Choo, Motherfucker on a t shirt? Can the back say Chugga Chugga Up Yours?
posted by palomar at 7:54 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Hey guys I made a silly gif of Hillary talking to the entire GOP field.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:54 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


It was great to vote for Bernie today, not only because it's exciting to have a candidate with the word "socialist" proudly attached to him, but also because my vote felt like direct support for the hard work put in by the people I know who helped make the campaign happen. Plenty of stuff went wrong, but it means a lot to me to know that I got to vote the way I did today.

There's a lot of anxiety these days about what's going to happen to everyone's jobs. We all knew this day would come, but there's still a lot of readjusting to do.

But! Now my primary vote is cast, and I'm excited to vote for Hillary in the general, because if we're going to be making history with our president, we can certainly do much worse than her.
posted by teponaztli at 7:54 PM on June 7, 2016 [23 favorites]


can i 100% seriously suggest we just forgo white dudes as president for the next 240 years?
posted by beerperson at 7:54 PM on June 7, 2016 [33 favorites]


The only question is where to put all these Love Trumps Hate stickers I've accumulated.
posted by palindromic at 7:54 PM on June 7, 2016


Excellent comments from Sen. Klobuchar.. And what a giant smile.
posted by bearwife at 7:55 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Reference: here's the full Declaration of Sentiments Clinton referenced. Amazing to think of what these women were fighting for...and sobering to realize that only one of the signers lived to see women get the vote. http://ecssba.rutgers.edu/docs/seneca.html
posted by mynameisluka at 7:55 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


I am thinking of my Mom too and wishing she could have been here to see this. My Mom was a diehard democrat. It was one of her lifelong identity markers. For years I was an independent but Bush/Cheney changed that. Now I am so proud to be aligned with a party that breaks ground for a black president, a woman. Just wow.
Her excerpts from the pledge of allegiance - nice touch; been a long time since those words sounded so real to me.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:56 PM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


ugh three more minutes until CA results start coming in
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:57 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


My great grandmother came here, by herself, when she was about 15, from Austria. She lost the rest of her family in a concentration camp, and made her own way here, learned English, and created a new life for herself. I think she'd have been excited tonight as well.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


A socialist is going to win one of the biggest states in the US by like 25% and then concede. Interesting times.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:59 PM on June 7, 2016


The beautiful thing about that speech is that it combined its two main themes:
  • The history-making nature of tonight as yet another step toward equality and inclusion
  • The anti-Trump message that we're stronger together and bridges are better than walls
into a single unified message. She, and I mean this in the most supportive way, didn't merely play the woman card; she slapped it down so hard she broke the card table. And it worked because the takeaway wasn't "vote for me because I'm a woman," but rather "vote for me because I will continue the centuries-long effort of progress through which this country has strived to better itself while my opponent wants to do precisely the opposite."
posted by zachlipton at 7:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [43 favorites]


Perfectly timed, my issue of MAD Magazine arrived today. (Yes I subscribe; 1/3 the newsstand price and I'd rather let my mail-carrier see me with it than a supermarket checker)

And it is a festival of Trump ridicule, starting with this on the cover (only substituting "ANOTHER BRAINLESS ISSUE OF MAD" at the top.

In its "Fundalini Pages" collection of quarter-page shorties the only Trump mention in the first 3 pages is in "Unabridged Signs That Tell It Like It Is" that included "HELP WANTED (Donald Trump scared off our Mexican workers)". But then it had "The TRUMPalini Pages" with goodies previously on MAD's website: "WHINE ENTHUSIAST" (slightly altered from "Whine Spectator"), "Donald Trump Recalls Other Tragedies (besides "7/11")", "The Startling Similarities and Differences Between Donald Trump and Burger King’s New “Angriest Whopper”" and "The First Sign of Spring" (robin builds nest in Donald's 'hair'), plus a full-page (frame your own) Trump University Diploma (which is, IMO, devastatingly perfect).

The 8-page parody of Batman V Superman ("Battyman V Stuporman: Dumb and Joyless") ends with evil billionaire Lax Truther replaced as his evil corporation's evil CEO by (you guessed it) Donald Trump (and not with a parody-version of his name).

Then there's a three-page "Donald Trump Vs. the Bible", contrasting REAL Bible quotes with REAL Trump quotes: "When you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind" - Luke 14:13; "I don't like losers" - Donald 7/18/2015 (Writer Desmond Devlin probably did more serious research than any MAD writer in YEARS)

Hillary Clinton does appear on the back cover WITH the Donald in a "MAD movie poster" for "CLINTON - TRUMP: UNCIVIL WAR" (both using photos that show off wrinkles). No sign of Bernie (even though he'd appeared a couple times recently on the website, as "Angry Bern" and "Deadpol", just too late for this issue).

I suspect that MAD has no particular fear about upsetting subscribers who are Trump supporters... in fact, I look forward to seeing them highlight the letters from the two who can write in the next issue's Letters & Tomatoes page.

I recommend this issue, not just for the ample Trump abuse, but also for the piece comparing America's Civil War to Captain America: Civil War (Robert E. Lee vs. Stan Lee) (guess they didn't have room for two full superhero parodies in one issue, with all that Trump), The Official Stormtrooper Recruitment Pamphlet (what? No StormTrumper reference? Nope.), a very elaborate center-spread by very elaborate illustrator Tom Bunk and a one-page comic by the Always Controversial Ted Rall (who let HIM in?).
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:00 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


My grandma was born before women won the right to vote. She couldn't stay up late enough to watch Hillary's speech tonight, but I'll show her tomorrow and probably cry all over again.
posted by Akhu at 8:00 PM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


Get Corey Booker on the phone. He's a certified hero and a solidly electable choice, and you can't teach that.
posted by vrakatar at 8:00 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm dying to know what my 94 year old grandmother, a lifelong communist, thinks of all this.
posted by teponaztli at 8:01 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


I have to admit that, even though I voted Bernie in the primary, I've been looking forward to seeing how Clinton handles Trump. As her callbacks to feminist triumphs and challenges in her speech remind us, Clinton is a woman who grew up, came of age, and built her career in an era were even the most marginal of progress of gender equality was hard fought. I have no doubt that at some point in her life, someone has asked Clinton to fetch coffee for the menfolk. I have no doubt that she's been the only woman in the room, and has had to fight to get her voice heard, to finish a sentence. To a lot of younger people, the idea of a woman as the presidential nominee may not seem outlandish, but to the women of Clinton's generation, her nomination is the like the Apollo Program of Equality.

Point is, Trump isn't something new to Clinton. His peevish alpha-male posturing is something she has had to deal with her whole life. The other Republican nominees may have been ruffled by Trump's bluster, but Clinton's been taking that shit and spinning gold out of it for decades. He's just another white dude in a suit who expects her to be quiet while he talks, and she's not going to do it.

Trump is quite possibly the best foil for Clinton for which she could have hoped, and not just because of the cultural aspects of gender equality at play in this election. If we, as a nation, can agree on anything, it's that Clinton is not afraid to fight dirty. With Trump, she's got zero reason to hold back and zero reason to play fair. She's been clawing her way up through one of the most patriarchal institutions of American society, it's government, for decades, and now she's got an opponent who is a caricature of all the prejudice she's faced along the way. It's venal and voyeuristic, but I'm looking forward to Clinton gleefully savaging Trump in the general.
posted by Panjandrum at 8:01 PM on June 7, 2016 [93 favorites]


You can't teach much of anything after Cory Booker got through with trashing the education system. BAM!
posted by Justinian at 8:01 PM on June 7, 2016 [18 favorites]


A socialist is going to win one of the biggest states in the US by like 25%

uh what?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:04 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


North Dakota is huge
posted by beerperson at 8:04 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


According to Wikipedia, North Dakota is the 19th largest state. So that's pretty good, I guess.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:05 PM on June 7, 2016


Hard to imagine a less palatable VP choice for Bernie supporters than Cory Booker. Sarah Palin, maybe.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:06 PM on June 7, 2016


Oh for some reason I thought they were talking about CA. NYT says ND to Sanders by about 40 points. He's behind Clinton everywhere else.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:06 PM on June 7, 2016


ND is the only caucus tonight.
posted by bearwife at 8:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


ugh three more minutes until CA results start coming in

It might be a slow one, from the nytimes re: counting votes in California, "This process will not happen fast. In general, only about 70 percent of the California vote is tabulated by noon the next day. That’s in part because ballots don’t have to arrive on Election Day."
posted by peeedro at 8:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Plus the writers strike
posted by beerperson at 8:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


It's also a state with a population that would barely make it the fifth largest city in California, so calling it 'one of the biggest' in an election is... bizarre.
posted by tavella at 8:09 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


MSNBC has now projected Hillary at 2043 with the preliminary vote coming in from the CA districts. She has the pledged delegate majority.
posted by dw at 8:10 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


But they've got huuuuge...tracts of land.
posted by AndrewInDC at 8:10 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Bernie won the 13th largest state by population and 18th by area by nearly 50 points.

Mind you, 4% of the state voters. But still.
posted by dw at 8:11 PM on June 7, 2016


Like a lot of her lines tonight that resonated to other social justice movements and historical moments, "bridges, not walls" actually has pretty deep roots in Catholic rhetoric -- the title "pontifex maximus" literally means "greatest bridge-builder" and calling the pope the "pontiff" is a reference to his important work of building bridges (originally between God and man, but almost immediately turned rhetorically to mean bridges among men of different sorts). "Bridges, not walls" pops up with relative frequency in modern Papal rhetoric (especially w/r/t the literal Berlin Wall); Francis used the "bridges, not walls" specifically when speaking about Trump and his Mexican wall. So social-justice Catholics who've been influenced by the Berrigan Brothers and Dorothy Day and so on will know exactly what the referent there is.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:12 PM on June 7, 2016 [67 favorites]


And Clinton took NJ, with just under six times as many delegates, by 27 points. ND doesn't seem particularly relevant.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


That's really interesting Eyebrows McGee. It seems the divide between the social-justice Catholics and the "nothing but abortion matters and Supreme Court seats are up for grabs" Catholics will be particularly stark this year, and it will be interesting to see how Catholic notables will thread that needle.
posted by zachlipton at 8:16 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


fine, he can be president of north dakota then
posted by poffin boffin at 8:20 PM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]


So, Clinton gave her speech in Brooklyn tonight. Guess who's coincidentally going to be in NYC tomorrow for some DNC & DSCC fundraising events tomorrow? Barack Obama. Maybe they'll grab a coffee and catch up or something.
posted by mhum at 8:21 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


Maybe after an election not a caucus. Really, these caucus results mean nothing whatever.
posted by bearwife at 8:22 PM on June 7, 2016


Her campaign headquarters is in Brooklyn
posted by zutalors! at 8:22 PM on June 7, 2016


I'm surprised that South Dakota hasn't been called for Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 8:22 PM on June 7, 2016


Obama's also going to be on Jimmy Fallon tomorrow. I wonder if a special guest might stop by...

(And no, I don't mean Jimmy doing his crap Neil Young impression)
posted by sallybrown at 8:23 PM on June 7, 2016


A friend just pointed out that the reason HRC always wears those boxy-ass jackets is bulletproof vests. Mind: blown.

At some point during the speech my heart kind of skipped a beat and I felt stressed. I realized that I was afraid that someone would assassinate her right then and there. I had that feeling when Obama was walking down Pennsylvania Avenue on the way to the White House on the way to his presidency, too. It's so scary and wrong that these things come to mind in 2016, but there we are.
posted by mynameisluka at 8:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [41 favorites]


I actually think the more interesting thing is that it looks like Clinton might win the South Dakota primary. I would have predicted South Dakota being Bernie territory.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:24 PM on June 7, 2016




Her campaign headquarters is in Brooklyn

She actually shares a PivotDesk with Jay-Z.
posted by beerperson at 8:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


I thought they hot desked?
posted by Panjandrum at 8:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump is fundamentally incapable of even understanding that speech from Clinton, and has no hope whatsoever of creating a substantive rejoinder. But his supporters don't seem to care.
posted by yesster at 8:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


I thought they hot desked?

Hey, keep it clean.
posted by bongo_x at 8:28 PM on June 7, 2016


I thought they hot desked?

That's George Constanza
posted by beerperson at 8:28 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Guess who's coincidentally going to be in NYC tomorrow for some DNC & DSCC fundraising events tomorrow? Barack Obama

Yeah, it seems that Obama called Sanders yesterday and gave him one of those "adult" talks. I'm guessing Obama said that he and Hillary are moving on to the general election and Sanders can either get on board or fall into obscurity. I expect Obama to start campaigning for Clinton against Trump immediately.

It's going to be Hillary and Bill and Elizabeth and Barack tag teaming Trump relentlessly like a swarm of killer bees.
posted by JackFlash at 8:28 PM on June 7, 2016 [43 favorites]


There really isn't much of a distinctive Catholic vote anymore -- they/we vote pretty much the same as our socioeconomic peers. (Which some media outlets spin as "the Catholic vote is the best bellwether!" which ... sure, I guess, since THEY'RE VOTING LIKE THE GENERAL POPULATION AND THERE ARE SIXTY MILLION OF THEM, that is an adequate polling sample of the general population I guess.) And the official voting guide from the US College of Catholic Bishops will highlight selected issues in the campaign and note the Catholic teaching on it. Abortion will be alphabetically first, but the selection of issues will be relative balanced between those that favor the GOP and the Dems and it will remind you that if you're Catholic you're in favor of minimum wage hikes and morally obligated to stop global warming. There will be a blurb about how being a voter in a modern secular democracy there won't be a party aligned with your belief system and instead you're responsible for carefully weighing and selecting candidates to vote for based on your conscience. Most of the official hierarchy will stick to this line and avoid endorsing specific candidates. (Although it will be very interesting to see how many condemn Trump's racist rhetoric.) There are a handful on the right wing who will not-quite-endorse the GOP because of "religious liberty" by which they will mean birth control through the ACA and gay marriage are bad. One or two on the left may not-quite-endorse the Democrats, probably those in dioceses which work the most closely with immigrants.

You'll definitely see more "I'm voting GOP because I'm Catholic" sorts on the right than "I'm voting Dem because I'm Catholic" sorts on the left ... but there are a few. John Kerry, maybe. Mario Cuomo gave one of the great classic speeches about religion in politics, talking passionately about how he worked as a politician who supported abortion while being a faithful Catholic, so whats-his-face Cuomo might conceivably leverage that legacy. Usually at least one Kennedy. But it's just not a super-live form of rhetoric on the left these days.

Actually I do think it'll be a lot more interesting how many public right-wing Catholics avoid endorsing Trump because of the racism, and how many outright denounce him.

But yeah, Hillary's speech was just very history-aware and very intersectional in its choice of referents. Which, fun for nerds.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


My mom works for a non-partisan research institute that tracks women in US elected office, and runs various programs to engage young women in politics. She's worked there for more than thirty years now, and has been eligible for full retirement benefits for quite some time. She was thinking about retiring this year, but when Clinton announced that she was going to run my mom canned those plans. I didn't work in this field for this long to stop just as a woman mounts a serious presidential campaign, she said.

I voted for Bernie in the primary, but tonight I'm glad that my mom will get to retire after spending her life working toward this moment.
posted by ActionPopulated at 8:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [47 favorites]


It's going to be Hillary and Bill and Elizabeth and Barack tag teaming Trump relentlessly like a swarm of killer bees.

This might be the only thing that makes me appreciate the U.S.'s absurdly long election process.
posted by Dalby at 8:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Jay-Z!? Pretty sure it's Beyoncé.
posted by humanfont at 8:31 PM on June 7, 2016


JackFlash: "It's going to be Hillary and Bill and Elizabeth and Barack tag teaming Trump relentlessly like a swarm of killer bees."

Someone mentioned Michelle Obama might get in the mix (maybe based on her commencement speech at CCNY). If so... ooh boy. It's gonna be like the Avengers up in here.
posted by mhum at 8:32 PM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]


A friend just pointed out that the reason HRC always wears those boxy-ass jackets is bulletproof vests. Mind: blown.

So one of the completely weird sexist things that I have niche knowledge in is that there is amazing amounts of sexism in the bulletproof vest/plates world. Very few people make women's body armor, and when they do, it's very rarely very good and not even kind of trying to make it for all women's body types. There's no reason it can't be done: it's just that few people bother.

So yeah: when Hillary Clinton wears shitty, boxy- looking clothing, it is most likely because even as one of the most powerful women in the goddamn world, she is still suffering from sexism in ways that no one would even expect.
posted by corb at 8:32 PM on June 7, 2016 [139 favorites]


Yglesias: It's time for Bernie Sanders to admit he lost and drop out
But now that everyone has voted (okay, not DC, but I think even the most die-hard Bernie Bro knows he's losing here), it's time for him to admit that he lost, endorse Clinton, and move on to his next act.

A lot of people are going to be agreeing with me about this today and tomorrow, and they'll mostly be invoking the need for party unity or the specter of Donald Trump. But I think Sanders sincerely believes he'll be the stronger candidate against Trump, rendering this argument unpersuasive.

The real reason, anyway, has nothing to do with Trump. Sanders should drop out for the sake of the millions of young people he's engaged in politics — many of them for their first time ever — and who could have decades of constructive engagement in the process if he teaches them the right lessons.

Those lessons, clearly visible from Sanders's own career, are that big change is hard and if you try for it you are likely to lose, but just because you lost is no reason to give up. It's also no cause to whine about how you've been cheated or take refuge in denial that it's truly over. You need to dust yourself off, move on to the next thing, and try to win more votes in the future.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:32 PM on June 7, 2016 [31 favorites]


I actually think the more interesting thing is that it looks like Clinton might win the South Dakota primary. I would have predicted South Dakota being Bernie territory.

Two adjacent states, demographically similar (largely white/rural) and both contests on the same night near the end of the primaries. If Clinton holds on to SD, then this is more evidence that Sanders voters are more effective in caucuses.
posted by maudlin at 8:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]




That is so fascinating, corb. Thanks for your perspective. "There's no reason why it can't be done, it's just that few people bother" seems to be endemic to everything related to a woman.

I don't even know that her jackets are shitty, but boy are they boxy. Now that aesthetic makes more sense.
posted by mynameisluka at 8:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


Is Sanders really going to spend the next month and a half going around desperately begging super delegates to switch to him? If he doesn't concede gracefully this week it's going to quickly go from sad to pathetic.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


JackFlash: "It's going to be Hillary and Bill and Elizabeth and Barack tag teaming Trump relentlessly like a swarm of killer bees."

Someone mentioned Michelle Obama might get in the mix (maybe based on her commencement speech at CCNY). If so... ooh boy. It's gonna be like the Avengers up in here.


Don't forget about Joe and Dr. Jill!
posted by sallybrown at 8:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Well I don't know if any other special guests will drop by but Madonna is booked to appear on the Tonight show with Obama.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:36 PM on June 7, 2016


i really want diamond joe "debating" trump, in this scenario it's trump blustering cretinously while joe smirks into the camera making jerkoff motions with one hand and sipping a beer with the other
posted by poffin boffin at 8:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [40 favorites]


Pretty sure after Obama leaves the Oval Office, Biden gets to just keep living in the pool house
posted by beerperson at 8:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [29 favorites]


MSNBC is reporting that the NYT is reporting that Bernie laid off 1/2 of his campaign staff.
posted by Sophie1 at 8:39 PM on June 7, 2016


poffin boffin: "joe smirks into the camera making jerkoff motions with one hand and sipping a beer with the other"

and the beer is schlitz
posted by mhum at 8:41 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


The real reason, anyway, has nothing to do with Trump. Sanders should drop out for the sake of the millions of young people he's engaged in politics — many of them for their first time ever — and who could have decades of constructive engagement in the process if he teaches them the right lessons.

This is what I keep coming back to. There are a lot of folks out there excited about Sanders who have not meaningfully participated in the process before, or in some cases, checked back in briefly after Obama in 2008. I include a non-trivial number of poetically interested teenagers too young to vote this cycle. Bitter resentment and futility is not the lesson I want them to come away with. Sealing in that enthusiasm to build a base for progressive candidates for decades to come is the best legacy Sanders could possibly leave, far more important than whatever noise Cornel West makes at the platform committee, and I hope it's not too late.
posted by zachlipton at 8:41 PM on June 7, 2016 [25 favorites]


Pretty sure after Obama leaves the Oval Office, Biden gets to just keep living in the pool house

Over the garage, like the Fonz.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:42 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


joe smirks into the camera making jerkoff motions with one hand and sipping a beer with the other

Somewhat counterintuitive, but Biden doesn't actually drink the booze drinks.
posted by dersins at 8:42 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Homeboy can pound those Bucklers tho.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:44 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Damn right, he fucking pounds them.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:44 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Biden doesn't actually drink the booze drinks.
Neither do George W. Bush nor Trump! Kinda funny that three of the most “who would you want to share a beer with” recent politicians would, at most, politely sip an O’Doul’s.
posted by nicepersonality at 8:46 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


i really want diamond joe "debating" trump, in this scenario it's trump blustering cretinously while joe smirks into the camera making jerkoff motions with one hand and sipping a beer with the other

Comedy Central really missed a golden opportunity not offering The Daily Show to Biden after Jon left.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:46 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


They couldn't; he already had a "full-time" job... but come January...
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:49 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is how I picture Biden during any debate: wearing shades and eating an ice cream cone from Salt and Straw. One of my favorite pictures.

All of the running around shouting about math reminds me of Rove freaking out during the 2012 election.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 8:51 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


There we go, SD was just called for Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 8:51 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


The claims about the number of new Sanders voters seem to be anecdotal. When I look at the vote totals I see that he has about 10 million votes. Obama had more than 17 million votes in 2008. We are a bigger country now. Of course Hillary also had more votes in 2008 (17 million vehicles 13 million).

Bernie has a very passionate group of core followers, but it isn't anything approaching what we've seen before in terms of expanding the party.
posted by humanfont at 8:52 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's possible Clinton is going to win 5 out of 6 tonight, only dropping the caucus in North Dakota in which approximately seventy people participated. I think the message to Sanders is loud and clear; please, please, please know when its time to bow out.
posted by Justinian at 8:56 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Fabulous Instagram post from Clinton.
posted by bearwife at 8:57 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sanders meeting with Obama on Thursday, per White House Press Secretary.
posted by Sophie1 at 8:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


JackFlash: "It's going to be Hillary and Bill and Elizabeth and Barack tag teaming Trump relentlessly like a swarm of killer bees."

mhum: Someone mentioned Michelle Obama might get in the mix (maybe based on her commencement speech at CCNY). If so... ooh boy. It's gonna be like the Avengers up in here.


And meanwhile, Trump can't get any credible Republican to go to bat for him. Even knobs like Rick Scott would literally prefer to talk about a tropical storm than his party's nominee. And those that will speak for him have been instructed to call reporters and rival politicians racist until they agree Trump is the best.

If the Democrat Avengers are assembling, we need to establish Trump's Marvel avatar as well. Red Skull is out, even if his supporters would like to make him that. The Red Skull could at least lay out a plan. A Thanos comparison would be also inappropriate, even if his stories are often as confusing as Trump's speeches. Thanos knows how to delegate effectively, I'm not sure if Newt Gingrich even counts as an infinity gem and besides, he only has the one.

No, right now Trump is the Mole Man, Harvey Elder, and he's telling his moloids that the plan is for them to go out there and bang their heads off Cap's shield all day. He hears from all the best people, just fantastic people, that this is Cap's number one weakness.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:00 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


We argued about which villain Trump best resembles a few threads ago. Kingpin was in the running, but we decided he was the antithesis of Trump in many ways: prefers to stay out of the limelight, truly cultured, intensely monogamous. I like the Mole Man and the moloids.
posted by stolyarova at 9:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Poor Mole Man, he just wanted to be loved...
posted by Sangermaine at 9:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't know enough comics trivia to specify exactly which member, but Trump is definitely in the Serpent Society.
posted by sandswipe at 9:12 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


IMPORTANT UPDATE: I am now in love with them.

I am just going to keep watching the s issorlift animation until Clinton gathers enough ki to cast hadouken.
posted by happyroach at 9:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]




I agree with those reasons for ruling Trump out as Kingpin. Fisk would find even the suggestion offensive. It's hard to come up with a good supervillain avatar for Trump though because generally, supervillains are effective, competent people with some degree of gravitas. Dr. Doom is almost as shameless a self promoter as Trump but the dude built a time machine in his spare time, so Doom's bragging rights are earned.

I could see a case for Trump as Mojo though. The relentless hucksterism, the behavior straight of a parallel universe, the alarming stuff on his head. This would mean assigning X-Men roles to the DNC heavyweights, but maybe I should go find that old thread with the first Trump villain-off first.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:17 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


As seen on Twitter:

2008: It's Hillary's job to unite the party.

2016: It's Hillary's job to unite the party.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:17 PM on June 7, 2016 [36 favorites]


Trump is a broken, half-programmed Doombot: he thinks he's Doom, but really all he got was the self-aggrandizing ego.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:18 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh geez, this Clinton video is really good.
posted by nicepersonality at 9:18 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sanders has pulled ahead in Montana.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:20 PM on June 7, 2016


You know what I haven't had in a while?

My next recommended, auto-play video was a live version of NIN, "March of the Pigs." This was a brand new incognito window with no browsing history.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 9:21 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Starting to doubt a lot of the people I follow on twitter are actually socialists because they are acting like they've never gotten their hearts broken by an election before.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:22 PM on June 7, 2016 [57 favorites]


I could see a case for Trump as Mojo as well. The relentless hucksterism, the behavior straight of a parallel universe, the alarming stuff on his head.

That seems apt! The reliance on broadcast media to cement his powerbase, the (literal, with Mojo) spinelessness, the total reliance on underlings to actually accomplish anything.

Of course, in that parallel Trump is also the Longshot candidate who somehow managed to grab the party's nomination, so that's not entirely perfect.
posted by cjelli at 9:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can I whine about the coverage some? Yes, I know you've heard it before. But the "respectable" media is going to have to figure out a way to cover Trump.

Driving home NPR was covering Trump's speech and using phrases like "on message" repeatedly, in contrast with his blatant racism attacking a judge for being "Mexican." The subtext--though I'm sure they'd deny it--is that this was what really counts. They want the non-racist stuff to be the "real" campaign so they can do their banal "even handed" schtick and tell you whether he has sound tactics or whether the demographics favor him in swing states.

The mainstream press has spent decades basically ignoring dog whistle racism and they lost all nerve to confront it. Now they get a guy blowing a friggin' racist tuba and they're ready to move on from it while he rests the instrument on his knee.

No disrespect to tuba players, it's an honorable instrument.
posted by mark k at 9:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [34 favorites]


They want the non-racist stuff to be the "real" campaign so they can do their banal "even handed" schtick

Basic NPR Story Model:

1. Side A says blah
2. Side B says blah
3. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:26 PM on June 7, 2016 [26 favorites]


I'm able to empathize with Clinton supporters tonight in what is truly a great joy. I look forward to voting for her, I look forward to her leadership, I look forward to what her leadership will mean for so many women around the world, and I hope that my vote and ongoing participation in the political process will further legitimize the concerns and ideals I and so many others have reignited or awoken to over the course of Sanders' beautiful, messy, desperate campaign.

Now being perhaps the last time I can speak of Sanders' campaign in present tense, I'll reiterate that Sanders won me over because he speaks truth to power in a way I'd never seen a politician do in my lifetime. I'll reiterate that he says things Obama never did. I'll reiterate how important it is to fight offensively for the left and not just defend it, and how frustrating it is when people say "look at how awful the right is, we can't move left."

We all need to get behind Hillary now, it's the right thing to do and it's not such a bitter pill. But part of that getting together is acknowledging and legitimizing the American left, to which our political future must belong. There is a clear path forward, and I hope we can all help each other walk it.
posted by an animate objects at 9:28 PM on June 7, 2016 [35 favorites]


The Sanders supporters have apparently been yelling "bullshit" as the results have been coming in and booed when Obama was mentioned. Apparently he's expected to speak sometime in the next half hour.

I've already seen the folks on Facebook insisting the results are all meaningless and rigged because the AP called the race early.
posted by zachlipton at 9:31 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


A fun thing to say when someone tries to slide an NPR mention-brag into a conversation (you've experienced it—the I don't watch TV, I usually just listen to NPR kinda thing):

Oh, NPR? You know the guy who created E! Television has been running that for a while right?

Snarky, cheap, and trollish. But fun.
posted by defenestration at 9:33 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Stay out of r/sandersforpresident for the foreseeable future if you don't want more of that. It's denials and conspiracies all the way down.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm really worried about what Bernie's going to say in his speech tonight. There's been precious little indication that he'll be gracious in defeat.
posted by yasaman at 9:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC is reporting that the NYT is reporting that Bernie laid off 1/2 of his campaign staff.

Even better, the NYT is reporting it themselves.
posted by msalt at 9:39 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hey, anyone have Sanders May fundraising numbers? They're usually released pretty early in the next month, but it's been a week and I still haven't seen them.
posted by FJT at 9:42 PM on June 7, 2016


As a Bernie voter who has intentionally dialed way back on commenting in these threads and tried to not be "one of those" Bernie supporters...it's time to give it up. There was an argument for taking this to the convention when the plan was supposed to be 'Here's how I'm going to keep influencing the party platform', but the only thing Bernie has been saying for weeks is 'Clinton is corrupt and stole the nomination, and I'm going to try every trick in the book to steal it back'. That's not helping defeat Trump (who is the closest to an existential threat to America since WWII or maybe the Civil War). At some point you're against Trump, or you're with him, and the time for Bernie to choose is now.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [34 favorites]


Hillary is giving Bernie an absolute fucking shellacking in California. Even worse than the one she gave him in Jersey.
posted by Talez at 9:46 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


And since Trumpy included an appeal for Sanders voters to join him in tonight's diatribe, Bernie HAS TO step up and say "NO". Remember, if you're not fighting the Orange Tire Fire, you're empowering it.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:48 PM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


Yeah, some of these numbers seem like they can't be right... the NYTimes map showed Hillary winning like 62-37 in San Francisco county with 70K reporting about half an hour ago. That's got to go the other way ultimately, right? Or at least get a lot closer?
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 9:51 PM on June 7, 2016


You know, tonight I'm just going to ignore that kind of bullshit. Because tonight, for the first time, a woman has a real chance of becoming our President. So fuck the haters.
posted by tavella at 9:52 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


(in response to Talez)
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 9:52 PM on June 7, 2016


Talez: "Hillary is giving Bernie an absolute fucking shellacking in California. Even worse than the one she gave him in Jersey."

From 538's liveblog, Beware The Order of California Returns. We should expect the gap to narrow as the counting continues but even with these early returns her margin appears to be wider than expected.

Also from that same liveblog, Did Early Call of Race Discourage Democratic Turnout?. Nate Silver suggests the possibility based on turnout in SD and NJ vs. 2008
posted by mhum at 9:53 PM on June 7, 2016


My understanding is that Clinton's huge early lead is because most of the results so far are from early/mail-in voting, which skews heavily in Clinton's favor due to being demographically older.
posted by themadthinker at 9:55 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


or, what mhum said
posted by themadthinker at 9:55 PM on June 7, 2016


Yeah, some of these numbers seem like they can't be right... the NYTimes map showed Hillary winning like 62-37 in San Francisco county with 70K reporting about half an hour ago. That's got to go the other way ultimately, right? Or at least get a lot closer?

Current SF numbers are Clinton up 58-41. That's going to narrow a bunch more because the early numbers are all early voting/vote by mail ballots, which aren't particularly representative of the electorate as a whole. That said, the lead in early voting is particularly dramatic, and I think we could all be a bit surprised where things settle down.
posted by zachlipton at 9:57 PM on June 7, 2016


Sanders staffers are starting to talk to the press and it seems the campaign is in some disarray.

I love how his campaign started to drag the Overton window back to the left after decades of a tilt to the right. The bird landing on his podium in Portland a few months ago was a genuine delight.

But I loathe how his campaign has become full of angry, nihilistic people who seem to delight in parroting decades of lies about the Clintons in the hopes that this will give Sanders a fighting chance. A chance he tanked when he started to claim she wasn't qualified.

Now to work towards demolishing Drumpf. To the pain.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:00 PM on June 7, 2016 [28 favorites]


HRC's campaign launches Republicans Against Trump. Take the pledge, get a sticker!
posted by Talez at 10:03 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Heh. RATs.
posted by yasaman at 10:03 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


I can't help but not hope that the Clinton campaign would be so foolish as to launch something with the acronym RAT.
posted by R343L at 10:04 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Either there's some weird backroom stuff going down right now or Sanders is waiting for as many people as possible to go to sleep before he speaks.
posted by zachlipton at 10:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders staffers are starting to talk to the press and it seems the campaign is in some disarray.

Wow, that is not a pretty picture of Sanders:
There’s no strategist pulling the strings, and no collection of burn-it-all-down aides egging him on. At the heart of the rage against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, the campaign aides closest to him say, is Bernie Sanders.

It was the Vermont senator who personally rewrote his campaign manager’s shorter statement after the chaos at the Nevada state party convention and blamed the political establishment for inciting the violence.

He was the one who made the choice to go after Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz after his wife read him a transcript of her blasting him on television.

He chose the knife fight over calling Clinton unqualified, which aides blame for pulling the bottom out of any hopes they had of winning in New York and their last real chance of turning a losing primary run around.
posted by dersins at 10:06 PM on June 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


NYT mobile app has a link to "Live: Bernie speaking to his supporters" and I've had the stream open for probably like 15 minutes and it's just beaucoup supporters waving signs. UGH I need to go to bed but I'm hoping this is something major and that's why it's taking him so long to come out.
posted by mostly vowels at 10:07 PM on June 7, 2016


That Politco story is pretty damning, if it's all true. Particularly that it was Sanders himself behind most of the turns that have seemed really off as the primaries continued past Super Tuesday. Ego seems central to a lot of it, at least based on that story (and my armchair analysis of it).
posted by defenestration at 10:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


is there a youtube stream?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:08 PM on June 7, 2016


Heh. RATs.

Ha! I have that one surname-altering browser plugin still enabled so for me the acronym is RAD. My cackling is eternal.
posted by palomar at 10:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here ya go fffm:

Sanders Santa Monica Rally Livestream
posted by FJT at 10:10 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, live YouTube stream here.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:10 PM on June 7, 2016


I put $10 in for Hillary's campaign just to get things started. I'll talk to my wife tomorrow about how much we want to chip in the rest of the campaign.
posted by Talez at 10:11 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


livestream.
posted by peeedro at 10:11 PM on June 7, 2016


On the other hand, waiting until 10 PM PST and 1 AM EST doesn't bode well for this being an especially significant speech. What's that media narrative supposed to be come morning? Clinton wins 5 of 6 states with mostly crushing margins, then Bernie has a tantrum? It won't even get a ton of social media traction given how many people will be asleep.
posted by yasaman at 10:11 PM on June 7, 2016


Good speech Clinton. Especially refreshing after the constant barrage of Trump.
posted by mazola at 10:11 PM on June 7, 2016


Just FYI: Hillary Clinton's speech is now available on YouTube if you missed it.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 10:12 PM on June 7, 2016


JackFlash: "It's going to be Hillary and Bill and Elizabeth and Barack tag teaming Trump relentlessly like a swarm of killer bees."
mhum: "Someone mentioned Michelle Obama might get in the mix (maybe based on her commencement speech at CCNY). If so... ooh boy. It's gonna be like the Avengers up in here."

Way better gender balance.
posted by you're a kitty! at 10:14 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I hope this defies 538's predictions and doesn't actually take all week.
posted by corb at 10:16 PM on June 7, 2016


Is Bernie going to show up? Holy shit I want to go to bed already.
posted by Talez at 10:18 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wow, that is not a pretty picture of Sanders:

It seems that what Josh Marshall was saying a few weeks ago on TPM was right on the money. That it was Bernie Sanders himself who was personally responsible for the state of the campaign.
posted by Justinian at 10:20 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Right? Wrap it up dude, I have work tomorrow morning.
posted by yasaman at 10:20 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


That article and the empty podium are my two rightmost tabs right now and it's freaking me out a little and I should probably close one of them (but not this one never this one)
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:24 PM on June 7, 2016


WE GET IT BERNIE YOU'RE TALKIN BOUT A REVOLUTION.
posted by Talez at 10:24 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
posted by zachlipton at 10:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Good grief, now they're playing "Uprising" by Muse.

I've never been sure whether or not that song is supposed to be self-parody. But either way, it perfectly encapsulates the way Bernie's campaign has gone off the rails.
posted by teraflop at 10:28 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's actually kind of a huge downer watching the crowd wait for Bernie.... they all sang along super loudly to the lyric in this Muse song about "we will be victorious". Dude has absolutely led these people down a primrose path.
posted by palomar at 10:28 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't remember a word of Ross Perot's concession speech, but I do remember it ending with him asking his wife for a dance and that was the first time I ever heard Crazy by Patsy Cline and it was lovely.
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:28 PM on June 7, 2016 [21 favorites]


I put $10 in for Hillary's campaign just to get things started. I'll talk to my wife tomorrow about how much we want to chip in the rest of the campaign.

If you live in Oregon, you get a $50 tax credit for a political donation to anyone of your choice. CORTEX. Free money, paid back to the penny when you file your state taxes. MATHOWIE. Hint, hint.
posted by msalt at 10:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Those poor youths holding and waving signs. RELEASE THEM FROM THEIR MISERY. They're looking visibly tired.
posted by yasaman at 10:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Stop in the name of love before you break my heart" -- great song choices here for the warmup
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


"Stop! In the Name of Love" on the Bernie feed is fucking on point.
posted by Mothlight at 10:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


At least the songs are mellowing out?
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:31 PM on June 7, 2016


🌉 > ⬛️
posted by Talez at 10:33 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


The people behind the podium don't know this, but they're actually going to be stuck there until the Electoral College votes in December (it ain't over 'til it's over!).

Always read the fine print when you go to one of these rallies.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


I have the California Democratic presidential results page open. I can't even remember their names but the other two dudes that were in at least one Democratic debate: not even in that list. But lots of other random people are. What possesses someone to file to run in a single state??
posted by R343L at 10:35 PM on June 7, 2016


In my headcanon, the songs match up with what's going on in a back room, as Bernie's advisers try to coax the tire iron out of his clenched fists and convince him to be reasonable. Soothing noises. Et cetera.

Man. Shit's got to be TENSE for the campaign workers right now. I feel for them. But seriously, Bernie, these people out there screaming for you? They're tired. They deserve honesty, they deserve respect, they deserve to go the hell home and eat a sandwich and go to bed.
posted by palomar at 10:36 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


This is worse than the Comcast hold music
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC put up an interesting graphic. After tonight Hillary Clinton will have received something around 33,000,000 votes in presidential primaries. All other female candidates in history received a combined total of 825,000 votes in presidential primaries.
posted by Justinian at 10:37 PM on June 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


aaah god and you think the rep is finally coming on every time the song changes
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:38 PM on June 7, 2016


On the Road Again?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:38 PM on June 7, 2016


The WaPo stream is down to me and 56 other people now.
posted by yasaman at 10:38 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


After tonight Hillary Clinton will have received something around 33,000,000 votes in presidential primaries. All other female candidates in history received a combined total of 825,000 votes in presidential primaries.

Just wait 'til she gets ~65,000,000 general election votes.
posted by dersins at 10:40 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


The sign wavers are waving harder in one specific direction and cheering. Do we have movie sign?
posted by palomar at 10:42 PM on June 7, 2016


With most all of the San Francisco results in, Clinton is up 55-44. I'm a little surprised by that.
posted by zachlipton at 10:42 PM on June 7, 2016


Sanders entering now, introduced as "The next President of the United States"
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:43 PM on June 7, 2016


In other California Primary news, California's retiring woman Democrat Senator (Barbara Boxer) will be replaced by another woman Democrat, because in the open primary, the top two vote-getters are Kamala Harris (State Attorney General) with 40% (so far, 20% counted) and Loretta Sanchez (Congressperson, best known for defeating one of the WORST Republicans of the time, Robert K. Dornan) with 16%. None of the Republicans have over 10%.

In my Congressional District where a woman Democrat is retiring, a man Democrat, Salud Carbajal is leading with 32% (only 13% counted) with second a toss up between two man Republicans, Justin Fareed and Katcho Achadjian with about 21% each. The only woman, Democrat Helene Schneider, only has about 13% but she's Mayor of Santa Barbara so nobody up here in San Luis Obispo cares. Grand total-wise, all the Democrats total about 50% of the vote while all the Republicans total about 48%, so the November election is still going to be close. (And that Democrat the California Republican Party sent out negative mailers to ME over, Bill Ostrander, ended up with only 5%... good jorb!)

Most of the California Congressional incumbents are winning outright with over 50% (but some small percentages counted), but one of the worst Republicans of THIS era, Darrell Issa, only at 54% in a district that's over 60% Republican (only 8% counted). Overthinking analysts say it may be because he was openly supporting Trump (and why wouldn't he? before he became a crooked Congressman, he was a crooked Businessman, just like the Donald... let's just hope the two don't get too close or we'll see some Trump buildings burned down for the insurance money... yes, he's THAT crooked).
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Anyone have any idea what this delay might mean?
posted by corb at 10:43 PM on June 7, 2016


"The next president of the United States"?? Are you shitting me?
posted by J.K. Seazer at 10:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


"The next president of the United States"?
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh lord jesus. Having himself announced as the next president is... not a great sign.
posted by palomar at 10:43 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Next President of the United States?

Does not bode well for concession speech. Also coming on to Darkness Rises? OK, bro.
posted by Talez at 10:44 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bernie you're drunk, go home.
posted by Justinian at 10:44 PM on June 7, 2016


ARE YOU KIDDING ME

I AM HAVING A RAGE BLACKOUT
posted by yasaman at 10:44 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Will this speech rival Rubio's 3rd-place victory speech in Iowa?
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:46 PM on June 7, 2016


My husband upon hearing this: "Oh my God! Is he calling for armed revolution? Are the troops hailing him Imperator? Honey, grab my rifle, we don't want to be seen as lukewarm when Emperor Bernie dons the purple! I mean, that is the only way he can do this, right?"
posted by corb at 10:47 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


I dunno, it sounds like he's winding up for something besides "ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH DEAR FRIENDS".
posted by Justinian at 10:47 PM on June 7, 2016


F
F
F
F
BibleThump
posted by Talez at 10:47 PM on June 7, 2016


BTW, in my county, San Luis Obispo, with 42% counted, Clinton has 53% and Sanders has 45% (the 5 never-heard-of-them candidates... none of them have more than 0.3%, and combined, they have less votes than "write-in votes")
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:50 PM on June 7, 2016


Okay, not so bad so far, yes yes, young people are important. "We will not allow right wing Republicans to control our government. And that is especially true with Donald Trump as the Republican candidate."
posted by yasaman at 10:50 PM on June 7, 2016


That Melania seems nice, right?

Not so much...

I will say, though, that Ivanka seems to be a classy and decent human being.
(And Ivanka converted to Judaism - her husband is Jewish. I bet family dinners are going to be quite awkward now...)
posted by SisterHavana at 10:51 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Huh. That almost sounds like he's ready to concede.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:51 PM on June 7, 2016


Oooh he is going off on Trump. Signaling the end, that he's throwing behind Clinton?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:51 PM on June 7, 2016


Yeah this sounds like the start of a concession speech now.
posted by corb at 10:52 PM on June 7, 2016


This... this doesn't sound much like a concession speech to me yet...
posted by mhum at 10:52 PM on June 7, 2016


Oh wait, back to class issues and campaign finance reform.
posted by yasaman at 10:53 PM on June 7, 2016


His face looks a little more resigned. Let him work up to it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:53 PM on June 7, 2016


This is the same wind-up Ted Cruz had for his concession speech. I think he's going to end it.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:53 PM on June 7, 2016


Doesn't sound very concession-like to me either.
posted by monopas at 10:53 PM on June 7, 2016


Makin' a lot of promises here for someone who's just lost the primary.
posted by yasaman at 10:53 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, he's not attacking Hillary at all, even if his shouters are chanting "Bern it down". I think it's definitely coming to a concession but it looks like it's choking him.
posted by corb at 10:54 PM on June 7, 2016


I hate that it's so hard to tell what he has in mind
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:54 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is some serious Lucy Van Pelt with the football business that he's playing out right now, if he does intend to concede. Let's get this crowd all super-crazy whipped up and then tell them it's over! That won't be a total shitstorm...
posted by palomar at 10:54 PM on June 7, 2016


He keeps saying we. If he concedes, I bet he defines 'we' as 'democrats'
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:55 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yes, I can see this pivoting in either direction right now. I am not enjoying this tension.
posted by cjelli at 10:55 PM on June 7, 2016


*huge sigh of relief* "You all know it is more than Bernie. It is all of us together."
posted by yasaman at 10:55 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


It sounds like he's conceding without conceding so the crowd doesn't riot. Like, he's basically saying "keep fighting but vote out the Republicans" without saying he's quitting.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:56 PM on June 7, 2016


Oh yeah. "But you all know it is more than Bernie."
posted by corb at 10:56 PM on June 7, 2016


I hope, fffm. I hope.
posted by palomar at 10:56 PM on June 7, 2016


Well, at least there haven't been accusations of corruption and rigging.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:56 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am cringing in anticipation of the tidal wave of boos from supporters once he starts talking about the need to support Clinton (whether in this speech or another, eventual concession speech).
posted by duffell at 10:56 PM on June 7, 2016


Sanders is going to concede, maybe even this week. But I can't imagine he'll do it in front of a crowd of several thousand people.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:56 PM on June 7, 2016


oh god my sound keeps cutting out. If he concedes will someone just post it here immediately so I don't keep watching this forever and can actually go to bed?
posted by corb at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016


"Next Tuesday we continue the fight in Washington, D.C."
posted by mhum at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016


"(crowd chanting BERNIE) You all know it is more than Bernie. It is all of us together! What this movement is about is millions of people from coast to coast standing up and knowing that we can do much, much better as a nation. [...missed some...] Together, we know what our job is, and that is to bring the American people to make a government that works for us, not the 1%. Next Tuesday we continue the fight to the next primary in Washington D.C."

Fuck.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016


I mean, still not a single mention of Hillary, but...I guess better than nothing.
posted by yasaman at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016


Nope. On to DC.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016


Aw, dude. Come on.
posted by palomar at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


'Next Tuesday we continue the fight in the last primary, in Washington DC.'

Welp.
posted by cjelli at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016


NEXT TUESDAY WE CONTINUE THE FIGHT
posted by corb at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016


Continue the fight. Jesus Christ.
posted by Talez at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016


Sigh.
posted by dumbland at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016


WHAT
posted by corb at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016


Crowd loses its shit.
posted by nom de poop at 10:57 PM on June 7, 2016


Ok then!! He lost me!
posted by ramix at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Next Tuesday we continue the fight"

Heckuva job, Bernie.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Well, shit. Doesn't sound like he's conceding, at any rate.

I kinda wonder if he walked out planning to do it and then he just couldn't bring himself to say the words.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


"And then we take the fight .... to Philadelphia"
posted by mhum at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016


Uggggh, says they are taking the fight to Philadelphia.

Old Man Yells At Cloud.
posted by Justinian at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


Godammit. Seriously?
posted by Hairy Lobster at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


oh FFS Bernie, all the way to the convention? Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you.
posted by duffell at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Take the fight to Philadelphia?!?! Is he saying he wants a contested convention?
posted by yasaman at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


'We are going to fight hard to win the primary in Washington D.C. And then we take our fight...to Philadelphia.'

WELP.
posted by cjelli at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is he really going to go through with his plan to try to sway to the super delegates?
posted by Sangermaine at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016


Oh crap. There goes the convention.
posted by monopas at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016


GAAAWWDD
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2016


Yup taking it all the way to the convention. FFS
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders couldn't win San Francisco but he thinks he can win DC?
posted by zachlipton at 10:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


He's meeting with Obama on Thursday. Maybe the anger translator is still around to talk some sense into him then.
posted by peeedro at 10:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


Are you fucking kidding me. "We will continue to fight for every vote and every delegate."
posted by yasaman at 10:59 PM on June 7, 2016


Listen to those dumbos boo Clinton. How tone deaf do you have to be to loudly boo the first female nominee in history?
posted by Justinian at 10:59 PM on June 7, 2016 [17 favorites]


"Kind call from President Obama" my ass. He chewed your tailfeathers out. I'll bet you five bucks.
posted by corb at 11:00 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


I honestly don't know what to say.

Ohhhh, with the nasty little "I look forward to working with HIM", I think I do know what to say. Fuck you, dude. Fuuuuuuuck you.
posted by palomar at 11:00 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


First time he's admitted the writing is on the wall. He's done, but can't say it in front of that crowd.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:00 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


"We are going to fight hard to win the primary in Washington D.C. and then we take our fight for social, economic, racial, and [...] justice to Philadelphia. I am pretty good at arithmetic and I know that the fight in front of us is a very steep fight, but we will continue to fight for every vote and every delegate [...]. Tonight I had a very kind call from President Obama and I look forward to working with HIM to make sure we move this country forward. Tonight I had a very gracious call from [with?] Secretary Clinton and congratulated her on her victories tonight (crowd boos)"
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:00 PM on June 7, 2016


And now the crowd is booing Clinton. And he's not exactly pushing back, yet.
posted by cjelli at 11:00 PM on June 7, 2016


Although I voted for Bernie Sanders, I like Hillary Clinton too and am absolutely thrilled that she's clinched the nomination. (It was a tossup for me right up until primary day and I voted for both Clinton and Sanders delegates - in Illinois we vote for individual delegates to the convention in a separate line item from the presidential vote on the primary ballot.) It gave me chills to watch her speech and watch history in the making.

I only wish my grandmother (dad's mom), who was a staunch Democrat and told me that when in doubt, vote for the women in the primaries, was here to see this. I cannot even begin to imagine how this would make her feel.
posted by SisterHavana at 11:00 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


And what's happens if/when Philadelphia doesn't go Sanders way? Where will they take the fight then?
posted by defenestration at 11:00 PM on June 7, 2016


And what's happens if/when Philadelphia doesn't go Sanders way? Where will they take the fight then?

He'll fight it ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT!
posted by Talez at 11:01 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Great now I can go to bed sad and angry
posted by theodolite at 11:01 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


How tone deaf do you have to be to loudly boo the first female nominee in history?

How can you be so tone deaf as to not step right the fuck on that right away when a crowd does it for you?
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:01 PM on June 7, 2016 [32 favorites]


Well, he's tossed out his chance to leave with some dignity intact. It's irrelevant what he does, in any case. The primary is over and Clinton can fully focus on Trump now.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:02 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Thank you all. The struggle continues."

Yeah Bernie, the struggle is real.
posted by zachlipton at 11:03 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


First time he's admitted the writing is on the wall. He's done, but can't say it in front of that crowd.

In the next 48 hours, Clinton will be endorsed by Obama, Biden, and Warren. Several hundred more superdelegates will declare their support for her. And then in a week, Sanders will be annihilated in the DC primary. All while half his staff gets laid off, and the other half starts emailing Clinton people their resumes.

It's over. He absolutely knows this.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:03 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


"Thank you all. The struggle continues." Bernie out. Bowie's Starman as the outro music.
posted by mhum at 11:03 PM on June 7, 2016


Well, whatever. Clinton is done campaigning against Sanders. I have no doubt she'll continue treating him and his campaign graciously in her speeches, as she did tonight, but this is her time now.
posted by duffell at 11:03 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


He's got some pointed word choices in there in that he's going to fight for social, economic, etc. justice at the convention, but he didn't say fight for the nomination. That might be him pivoting to fighting over the platform or whatever without explicitly pissing off the supporters who just waited hours for him to show up and speak.

But still...damn it, dude.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:03 PM on June 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


First time he's admitted the writing is on the wall. He's done, but can't say it in front of that crowd.

Then who can or will he say it in front of?

And now the crowd is booing Clinton. And he's not exactly pushing back, yet.

He raised his hands for silence very quickly, and in obvious annoyance.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:04 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Starman!
posted by homunculus at 11:04 PM on June 7, 2016


Enjoy that meeting with Obama on Thursday, buddy. It's not gonna go well for you. What the hell is his narrative going to be until the convention? "Superdelegates, overturn the will of the people because I said so"?

Whatever. Bye, Bernie. It's done.
posted by yasaman at 11:04 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


He raised his hands for silence very quickly, and in obvious annoyance.

But he didn't have the courage to say anything.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 11:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [18 favorites]


Couldn't everyone just gaslight Sanders by carrying on as if he conceded?

"A gracious concession speech--"
I DIDN'T CONCEDE!
"Generous in defeat--"
I CAN STILL WIN!
posted by um at 11:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [33 favorites]


So in the end, he's just another dude who is angry that a woman is getting the job he thinks he deserves.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [43 favorites]


Yeah, I noticed that word choice too, scaryblackdeath.

But raising his hands is not enough on the Clinton boos. He should have said something.
posted by corb at 11:05 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


I imagine Obama just sitting at the Resolute desk in the Oval Office staring into Sanders' eyes and slowly shaking his head in disappointment.
posted by Justinian at 11:06 PM on June 7, 2016 [18 favorites]


It's not though, this is part of a process for the Bernie Bros and diehards. Clinton needs them too, and this is a warm up to a concession speech from Bernie (I hope). He can't concede in front of this crowd after 2 weeks of overheated rhetoric, but look at him, he's deflated, he knows this is it, and he's making (small) concessions to that effect.

Hopefully he's going to dial down the "she's corrupt" bullshit now, refocus on issues, and deliver a resounding concession at the convention. His supporters deserve no less, and if he plays it like that, all is forgiven, he comes out a hero.

Now do that, Bernie, and stop giving us all cause to think that you wont.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:06 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


>And now the crowd is booing Clinton. And he's not exactly pushing back, yet.

He raised his hands for silence very quickly, and in obvious annoyance.


But he said nothing. Silence speaks volumes.
posted by cjelli at 11:06 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


feeling kinda vindicated about my deep gut feelings that he's fundamentally no different from any other old white man in politics.
posted by palomar at 11:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [22 favorites]


Yes he can. A man of honor would. A man of honor would say "We fought hard, but we lost. Now is the time to lick our wounds and get up again for the new fight."
posted by corb at 11:07 PM on June 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Hopefully he's going to dial down the "she's corrupt" bullshit now, refocus on issues, and deliver a resounding concession at the convention.

If he doesn't concede before the convention he won't get a speaking slot!
posted by Justinian at 11:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Enjoy that meeting with Obama on Thursday, buddy. It's not gonna go well for you.

Interesting bit from the statement from President Obama about tonight:
In addition, at Senator Sanders' request, the President and Senator Sanders will meet at the White House on Thursday to continue their conversation about the significant issues at stake in this election that matter most to America's working families. The President looks forward to continuing the conversation with Senator Sanders about how to build on the extraordinary work he has done to engage millions of Democratic voters, and to build on that enthusiasm in the weeks and months ahead.
Why would Sanders ask Obama to meet with him?
posted by Sangermaine at 11:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


What a dill weed. Sanders is going back to the Senate, but he's squandering any power he could have wielded in the next Congress.
posted by dw at 11:08 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


he's coming back out in a minute to say "PSYCHE!" right

where is the psyche
posted by murphy slaw at 11:09 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Maybe he's going to ask for something in order to endorse Clinton. That's all I can think of.
posted by corb at 11:09 PM on June 7, 2016


I've thought he was a sexist since the debates last year when he conspicuously kept talking over or outright not listening to women, over and over, but I haven't felt comfortable posting about it until now
posted by theodolite at 11:09 PM on June 7, 2016 [19 favorites]


I guess charitably it might take him a couple days to come round and probably he will. Other candidates have in the past hung on a bit. Sigh though at not saying something when Clinton is booed. :(
posted by R343L at 11:09 PM on June 7, 2016


Why would Sanders ask Obama to meet with him?

He thinks he has leverage, and is going to try to make demands, is my guess.
posted by dersins at 11:12 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yes he can. A man of honor would. A man of honor would say "We fought hard, but we lost. Now is the time to lick our wounds and get up again for the new fight."

Look, he has every right to thank and make feel good the people in California who worked their asses off for him. And it's notable in what he said- we need to defeat Trump, as well as what he didn't say- pretty much anything negative about Clinton.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:12 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Maybe he's going to ask for something in order to endorse Clinton.

I would bet good money it's this. The man's entire senate career has been built on this strategy. And for that honestly I don't begrudge him. But come on, dude. We all know it's over, rein your supporters in.
posted by biogeo at 11:12 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Popular votes in the primaries per Wikipedia:
Clinton: 15,050,598
Trump: 11,676,271
Sanders: 11,363,225
posted by kirkaracha at 11:12 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


So I hadn't watched any campaign speeches until tonight.

Clinton's amazing and her speechwriter deserves lots of prizes and she is a damn fine speaker and I cried. Trump is just wow scary, and his speechwriter is a dystopian crazypants who needs to get a puppy or something. Bernie sounded a lot more like Trump than like Hillary.
posted by monopas at 11:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


He thinks he has leverage, and is going to try to make demands, is my guess.

Senator? You can have my answer now, if you like. My offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.
posted by Justinian at 11:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [18 favorites]


Yeah, to be fair, Clinton's speech following Obama's clinching of the nomination said, among other things, "I will be making no decisions tonight," and she didn't formally concede for like a week after.

...but she also didn't vow to take the fight all the way to the convention.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


pretty much anything negative about Clinton.

Pretty much nothing positive either, though.
posted by cjelli at 11:13 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


MSNBC: "The male ego is a delicate flower."
posted by XMLicious at 11:15 PM on June 7, 2016 [34 favorites]


Yeah, to be fair, Clinton's speech following Obama's clinching of the nomination said, among other things, "I will be making no decisions tonight," and she didn't formally concede for like a week after...but she also didn't vow to take the fight all the way to the convention.

That, yes. I'm not surprised that he didn't concede tonight; I am surprised that he gave a speech that seems to close the door on conceding gracefully at any point in the future, that very explicitly stresses that he plans to keep fighting and not concede. Two very different ways of 'not conceding.'
posted by cjelli at 11:16 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Back in 2008 (when the election was far closer than it was today), Clinton was clear that when she said "I will be making no decisions tonight" and her surrogates made it clear that she was interested in making a deal. She wasn't leading the charge to a goddamn floor fight.
posted by zachlipton at 11:16 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Maybe he's going to ask for something in order to endorse Clinton.

Predicted response.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:17 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


He needs time to lay the ground work for the concession, he's not just giving up, if he's anything like what he says he is, he needs to convince the Bernie Bros to follow him into acceptance. He should've done more for that before now, but he can't just turn on a dime and bring all his momentum along to Clinton's side with him. They need to be talked into it. He has to start now, better late than never. He's got a little bit of time between now and the convention where his tone and rhetorical softening can make a difference, especially in a turnout election. I wouldn't fault him for not conceeding tonight, and I'm not sure if Clinton would even want him to if she's looking at the whole picture.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:17 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


I wonder how much Sanders' defiance is motivated by money problems. Last I heard they had some serious financial overhang, pouring tons of resources and ad buys into the remaining states just as fundraising was starting to wane. Maybe he wants to milk a few more million from his supporters to avoid having to crawl back to the DNC for help retiring his remaining campaign debt? Even Clinton took until 2013 to pay off the debt on her '08 run.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:17 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


But there's a world of difference between laying groundwork for concession and whatever that was that we just watched. That was Trump levels of bonkers, yo.
posted by palomar at 11:18 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Also, he's always been an outsider candidate, there's more of an argument for "taking the fight to the convention" for Bernie than for institutional actor extreme Clinton 2008. But there's a difference for him between a soft "we took this to the convention...where I conceded in a dramatic pre-planned speech endorsing the nominee" and "where I fought an idiotic and doomed floor fight for every delegate and gained zero support for either my candidacy or my policy platform".
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:20 PM on June 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm glad he didn't attack Clinton but god I wish he would have said literally anything to repudiate the booing. His failure to get that sort of hostile shit under control is an egregious failure of leadership. A single sentence could have made a difference there, just one "hey, that doesn't help anyone, don't do that." Would that have been hard? I miss "your damn emails!" Sanders. That was the guy I trusted.
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:20 PM on June 7, 2016 [34 favorites]


Also, it may have been addressed upthread, but I heard on the CNN stream earlier that the Sanders campaign was initiating significant layoffs, including among the advance teams that would have been tasked with planning general election rallies. It definitely didn't sound like he was confident in the odds of victory.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:20 PM on June 7, 2016


It just feels like he's continuing to double down every time his path to victory narrows. What happens after losing in DC?

I'm thinking of Dean and the "it's not about you, it's about the country" call that helped walk him off the ledge. What call would it take defy Sanders's inertia?

I think he may have started to #feelthebern a bit too much, himself.
posted by defenestration at 11:22 PM on June 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


She wasn't leading the charge to a goddamn floor fight.

I think people are grossly over-interpreting this. There is no "floor fight." There is no "contested convention." Superdelegates literally make this impossible in a two-party race. People are making this sound like he's suggesting his supporters storm the convention center like the middle of Les Mis.

Clinton has the majority. They're going to make her the nominee, unless Sanders convinces literally seven hundred of them to change their minds, which isn't going to happen, and saying it could happen is like saying a meteor could also hit Philadelphia in July.

Sanders is "leading a charge" to have as much of a say in crafting the platform as he can get, which is likely what his conversation with Obama will be about on Thursday.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


Nobody in this election can lay claim to honor. Those days are gone. This election cycle has been a Complete Clusterfuck and will continue to be so until and probably long after someone is elected. Everything about this whole process has been an Onion headline. Remember what most of us were predicting and pontificating a mere year ago? Yeah, flip that script sideways and upside down and none of us would have predicted where we are now. I, for one am not hopeful for a positive outcome.
posted by futz at 11:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't fault him for not conceding tonight, nor did I particularly expect him to. Not conceding is a far cry from insisting he's taking it to the convention. He had a few moments where he acknowledged that this fight is about more than just Bernie Sanders where it seemed like he grasped reality, but then launched into nonsense about how winning DC (which he won't) will make all the difference (which it won't). He could have talked about building a movement that lasts years, but he's apparently adamant he wants to watch it all Bern, and the hopes of all those exhausted sign-waving supporters don't mean a damn.
posted by zachlipton at 11:23 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I wonder how much Sanders' defiance is motivated by money problems. Last I heard they had some serious financial overhang, pouring tons of resources and ad buys into the remaining states just as fundraising was starting to wane. Maybe he wants to milk a few more million from his supporters to avoid having to crawl back to the DNC for help retiring his remaining campaign debt? Even Clinton took until 2013 to pay off the debt on her '08 run.

According to this Politico article posted earlier in the thread, he sounds terrified of ending up in debt:
A conversation with former Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin about getting left in personal debt from his own 1992 presidential campaign has stayed at the top of Sanders’ mind.

He demanded that the campaign bank account never go under $10 million, even when that’s meant decisions Weaver and campaign architect Tad Devine have protested -- like making the call in the final days before Kentucky to go with digital director Kenneth Pennington’s plan to focus on data and field, instead of $300,000 to match Clinton on TV.

Sanders ultimately lost there by just 1,924 votes.
posted by dersins at 11:24 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


You know when I think of Bernie, I remember my own organizing time - that feeling that you got when you were giving speeches to a roaring house, that high of people cheering and shouting for you. But I was lucky - I had other people there to be like "they're not really shouting for you, they're shouting for what you stand for, don't let it get to your head, just get in and get out." I wonder if Bernie ever did? I wonder if Bernie went out there to give a concession speech, and just lost it hearing everyone chant his name - that magic of a crowd. It doesn't make me less irritated, but - I just wonder about it.
posted by corb at 11:24 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


I'm thinking of Dean and the "it's not about you, it's about the country" call helped walk him off the ledge. What call would it take defy Sanders's inertia?

It sounds like Obama, among others, have given this a try already ..
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:24 PM on June 7, 2016


he can't just turn on a dime and bring all his momentum along to Clinton's side with him. He has to start now, better late than never...I wouldn't fault him for not conceeding tonight

I don't fault him for not conceding tonight, either, but, at least to me, watching that speech felt like he was ramping up for a fight, rather than business-as-usual, or the first step in a slow brake towards concession. There didn't seem to be any attempt to turn at all. Maybe he's starting now, but I really don't think he was starting an hour ago when he walked out onto that stage.
posted by cjelli at 11:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


T.D. Strange: "He needs time to lay the ground work for the concession, he's not just giving up"

Y'know, I really hope that this is the correct read on the situation. From the outside, I'm going in with the expectation of a concession speech, so it sounded all wrong. However, that's clearly not what the crowd was expecting and things might have gotten ugly if he dropped a straight-up concession into this crowd. And, as others mentioned, Clinton herself didn't actually concede on the day of the last primary but a few days later. But, if that's the case, he's making me nervous with his talk of D.C. and Philadelphia and "fighting for every delegate"?
posted by mhum at 11:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


We all know it's over, rein your supporters in.

Exactly how does one do that?
I am serious in this. Do you know of a way to get thousands of people, hopped up on slogans and mind numbing chanting to stop and think as individuals again and concede to that point?

I think you have a very odd understanding of humans and especially humans in crowds. Add in the "new blood" aspect of most of his supporters, and you have the recipe for a really bad time. I mean, we're not talking about people just venting frustration and swearing in public. We're talking mayhem and riots.

I really do wonder sometimes about what people really think a political leader can do against a mob. One on one, or one on a small group, sure, you can talk sense and de-escalate the situation. But thousands? Heck, even a few hundred is just asking for something stupid to happen.

No. This was probably the only way to get out of tonight safely and without making things really, really bad later (i.e. internet keyboard warriors of the lesser socialized interweb cultures pulling more shit like making threatening phone call to reporters or doxxing super-delegates).

Yes, it would be lovely if everyone shared the same cultural mores and values that (figurative) you do, but seriously, when faced with a mob of hopeful (but angry) people, you do not poke the badgers.
posted by daq at 11:25 PM on June 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Predicted response.

Aw, I thought that was going to go to the Willy Wonka You Get Nothing clip.
posted by um at 11:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


After today's events, continuing to run just weakens the message. He doesn't need to stay in to pull Clinton to the left now. He's diluting his brand. Just setting his supporters up for greater disappointment.
posted by monopas at 11:27 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


None of this seems like the actions of a man who plans to have a viable future in politics. Is he planning to keep his Senate seat?
posted by palomar at 11:28 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


In the state where he's won elected office for 40 years? Probably.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:29 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am serious in this. Do you know of a way to get thousands of people, hopped up on slogans and mind numbing chanting to stop and think as individuals again and concede to that point?

In this case Sanders should start by noting, has in the past, that Clinton on her worst day would be vastly better than Trump at his best. He should start by noting that her achievements here are historic and should be respected regardless of who you voted for. And he should start by saying that he's running a positive campaign (even if he hasn't) based on issues and not personality attacks. He starts by saying his campaign is above the sort of slander and cheap shots and nonsense issues that other politicians (he could say Republicans) are after. He starts by showing a little respect.

Even if he didn't concede tonight, that would have been a big step in the right direction. He didn't take it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:30 PM on June 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


None of this seems like the actions of a man who plans to have a viable future in politics. Is he planning to keep his Senate seat?

I sort of assumed he'd decided he was done with running for office when he started raising money for the DNC chair's primary opponent.
posted by dersins at 11:32 PM on June 7, 2016


Trump says he's giving a major 'everything wrong with the Clintons' speech next week

L'esprit de l'escalier "is a French term used in English for the predicament of thinking of the perfect reply too late." SPOILER ALERT: WhitewaterMonicaLewinskyBenghaziEmailsEmailsEmails.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:32 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Do you know of a way to get thousands of people, hopped up on slogans and mind numbing chanting to stop and think as individuals again and concede to that point?

Yes, actually. You give them a direction and a purpose. I think it would even have been quite conceivable to say any of the following:

1) "We're licked this time, but we have the strength to change the rules, to make sure outsider candidates have more of a chance. And we're coming back in 2020."
2) "They think we're going to take our ball and go home. They think you're not true Democrats, that you won't vote against Trump just because Clinton will be the nominee. Let's prove them wrong!"
3) "So we're going to help Clinton win. But we're going to hold her feet to the fire and make sure she includes X platform!"

Literally, there's dozens of things he could have said. There are a lot of ways to turn a crowd. Now - I'm not sure how great he is at public speaking, I haven't listened to a lot of his speeches. Maybe he doesn't know how to do that. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be done.
posted by corb at 11:33 PM on June 7, 2016 [45 favorites]


Forty years of goodwill and admiration can be squandered very, very quickly...
posted by palomar at 11:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Did he talk about down ticket races at all? I'm getting really excited about the possibility of the dems actually taking back a bunch of seats. I really wish that was where Sanders would move. Can you imagine all that energy directed at getting super progressive candidates running for dog catcher to governor!?
posted by R343L at 11:34 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


Trump says he's giving a major 'everything wrong with the Clintons' speech next week

L'esprit de l'escalier "is a French term used in English for the predicament of thinking of the perfect reply too late." SPOILER ALERT: WhitewaterMonicaLewinskyBenghaziEmailsEmailsEmails.


Perhaps one of his revelations will be that when Clinton was running for Senate she accepted campaign contributions from known dickbag and overt racist DONALD J TRUMP BILLIONAIRE.
posted by dersins at 11:35 PM on June 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


daq: "Do you know of a way to get thousands of people, hopped up on slogans and mind numbing chanting to stop and think as individuals again and concede to that point?"

In my fantasy world, Bernie would have been emphasizing the importance of local organizing and down-ballot races to building a sustainable movement. That way, when the presidential nomination slipped away from him, he's still got something to point his supporters' energy towards. Sure, you might not get your guy at the top of the ticket but that's no reason to not vote out your state senator or city councilman or whatever. Hell, if Sanders could direct even a portion of his supporters to vote in off-year elections, that could be some real, long-lasting change. I heard a little bit of this in his speech tonight with the part about change coming from the bottom not the top.

On preview: what corb and R343L said
posted by mhum at 11:36 PM on June 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


In my fantasy world, he would have been emphasizing the importance of local organizing and down-ballot races to build a sustainable movement a month ago, but tonight would have been an excellent time to start. Instead he thinks he can somehow build more momentum if he wins the DC primary?
posted by zachlipton at 11:38 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


He's gonna win the DC primary even stronger than Rubio won all of his! Might even be a 10-90 victory!
posted by Justinian at 11:40 PM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Did he talk about down ticket races at all?

I thought that was where he was gonna go with the "change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down" line. But he didn't say it in those words, no.
posted by teraflop at 11:40 PM on June 7, 2016


scaryblackdeath:
Yeah, I agree that those are all things that should have been happening since the beginning of this whole campaign. In fact, at the very beginning, it was much more like that.

But then we had the "new blood" problem. There have been a whole bunch of comments and commentary in the media about all the new voters, or "new to the process" voters who don't really understand how the whole thing works.

I just think that the point where Sanders would have been able to keep this whole thing clean was months ago, but I also don't think he had the staff or political science trained PR handlers who could have gotten out in front of that whole problem. I mean, to a greater degree, one of the main things that would have been helpful would have been handing out 11th grade social studies books at the conventions, and maybe Democratic Party caucus and primary voting rules. Making sure that every voter had someone hand them the refresher course on how to interact with our democracy. Of course, we also don't see that happening with the DNC itself, so there's that problem (sigh), but especially because this candidacy was based upon a whole lot of raw emotional energy, but not a lot of actual deep understanding of the system (by the voters, but also by Sanders himself, it seems), the very first thing that should have been at least tried was consensus on the rules and planning on how to get energized voters the basic playbook so they could stay on message and out of trouble (i.e. the internet brigades). That would have nipped the Bernie Bro bullshit in the bud, and he would never have had to weaken his 'brand' (guh, I hate that so much. Trump has a 'brand'. Real people have ideas. Bleagh).

But I'm just finally commenting because I am sort of caught up with this thread. I haven't been able to comment on any of the previous ones because they moved so damn fast.
posted by daq at 11:41 PM on June 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


One of the guests on MSNBC... I'm not actually sure who she is... kind of excoriated Sanders by making the point that this was another example of a man standing in front of a woman and trying to deny her something that she has fairly earned.

Ouch.
posted by Justinian at 11:44 PM on June 7, 2016 [18 favorites]


Exactly how does one do that?

How about right here in his own speech we all just heard?

"But you know it is more than Bernie, it is all of us together."

And right after that line he could have defined a more inclusive and wide definition of 'together' that includes Democrats and all Americans: "This includes the millions of voters and thousands of volunteers who have participated in the primaries that have taken place across America. Who have voted for not only for me, but for my opponent, Secretary Hillary Clinton."

I was disappointed that he didn't say that, but instead just goes back to throwing red meat and talking about fighting on to the convention.
posted by FJT at 11:53 PM on June 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


I am serious in this . . . . I really do wonder sometimes about what people really think a political leader can do against a mob.

This is really not that hard, and I am serious about that.

You came in behind on delegates, with no path to the nomination and to top it off you seem to have had a losing night. But you can tell your supporters how incredible the journey was (which has the virtue of being true in his case) and how it is time to move to the next stage in the fight, which is against Trump and in favor of progressive legislation in the next Congress, under a Democratic president. And how you will still be championing these issues in the Senate but how you need their support and you need Trump not to be in the White House.

It's a standard template, and there are boos at some points when you make this speech, but unless you really think Sanders' supporters are a mob with no understanding of politics but a proclivity for violence or something they would keep backing you.
posted by mark k at 11:54 PM on June 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


Oh man. I'm imagining a Sanders-led revival of Dean's 50-state strategy. The enthusiasm of his supporters combined with his own sheer stubbornness. Sure, the Deep South might continue to be impenetrable for Democrats, but if they're ever going to be able to capitalize on demographic shifts to flip Texas, someone needs to lay the groundwork.
posted by mhum at 11:55 PM on June 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Perhaps Sanders will march into the Oval Office, look Obama square in the eye, and demand to be made president there and then. When you think about it, it's actually his best shot.
posted by um at 12:02 AM on June 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


"We're licked this time,...
Please take this as me being friendly, and I do agree with a lot of your points.
I'm going to stop you right there.
You never tell a crowd they lost or they are losing or they are losers. Ever. That's like, rule #1 of pacifying mobs. Just look at how Trump uses it to rile up crowds. You see how well it works to get people all kinds of het up and angry?

I really want a leader who can do the things you describe. I also want a society where mob action and group behaviors are better understood by everyone and that people are better able to keep their wits about them in crowds and crowd situations. Sadly, that's not going to happen anytime soon (well, at least the crowd part).

I mean, I guess I'm fatalistic about crowds, but I've seen too many situations where crowds just do stupid things. There is a reason we have laws about 'inciting a riot'. People get hurt.


As to the other things, I really cannot see anyone who wants to be a political leader trying to get those ideas across without seriously damaging their support, especially from dilettante voters. The majority of Sanders voters are the apathetic people who do feel outside the system. Sanders could have brought them in, but I don't see that groundwork being there at any time in the campaign. The overall analysis of the campaigns messaging has been (sadly) lacking in any kind of real "here's what you need to do for us to win" other than soliciting donations and attending rallies (well, that and voting, but that's boilerplate). This is why we ended up with the brigades and Bernie Bros agro posturing, instead of actual organization and planning and canvasing and division of labor among the newly energized base.

I don't see a lot of it from the Clinton campaign either, sadly, but her husbands teams built the playbook on how to run a national campaign through massive media exposure to begin with (which, frankly, I am impressed with Hillary Clinton's expertise and subtle use of modern media skills). But those are my own personal political interests (use of media in controlling the narrative). I am not saying that the Clinton campaigns are lying (because I know someone is thinking that is what I am saying). I am saying that mass media is a tool that is used to disseminate information, and the use of narrative is key to effective communication. Slogans will get you only so far. You have to have an over-arching narrative to engage people, which, if my guess is correct, we aren't even up to the end of the first act. We've just been given two examples of how well Hillary Clinton, the candidate, can hold her own against the buffoon Trump, but we are also seeing how well Trump is able to manipulate the media itself into giving him free reign in spreading his own narrative. One is precise and highly effective. The other is practically vaudevillian in nature, seeming to attract the baser natures of the populace to rise up and howl for blood.

But it is too soon to just end this chapter. Sanders can, and probably should go all the way to the convention. I know, I know, we are all tired of the constant arguments between the various supporters, and good lord, whoever the writers are, they seem to have stretched this subplot of the Democratic nomination process beyond the tediousness that it already was. But a bad writer is someone who creates a mob and then just has them disappear, never to be heard from again. No, those people still have to be in the story, and the only way they are is for them to have redemption in the ending of this process. 80%, isn't that the number? 80% of Sanders supporters will wholeheartedly vote for Hillary Clinton in November. If Sanders were to concede tonight (or even next week), that number will be far lower.

And this has been daq's storytime. Good night, kids.
posted by daq at 12:04 AM on June 8, 2016 [8 favorites]


Remember when one of McCain's supporters said something racist about Obama and McCain stood up for Obama?

That's how you stand up to your supporters.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:06 AM on June 8, 2016 [35 favorites]


I mean, McCain is a jerk, but seriously.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:07 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


Why would Sanders ask Obama to meet with him?

He needs all the superdelegates he can get.
posted by one_bean at 12:22 AM on June 8, 2016 [10 favorites]


Statement from the White House on tonight's results and the Thursday meeting.
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:23 AM on June 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Did the crowd really boo Clinton longer than they booed Trump?
posted by halifix at 12:31 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'd be delighted to see America get a socialist president, but after that speech on this day, not Bernie. I expected him to concede and perhaps, as others have observed upthread, not to was an appropriate tactical decision, but his speech to my ears was all rhetorical bluster and sloganeering. Not gracious, not inspiring and not unifying, while Hillary's was all those things. If Bernie's gonna fight on he should get a better speechwriter.
posted by valetta at 12:34 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


I didn't find Hillary's speech inspiring or unifying, it seemed filled with calculated feel-good phrases delivered blandly. She did show a bit of graciousness, which I felt like I hadn't seen much of lately.
posted by scrowdid at 12:55 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


I was out tonight, so missed following everything as it unfolded. I caught up on this thread first (natch), and just now finished watching the video of Clinton's speech.

You guys. I had read all the excerpts above, and it sounded impressive and everything, but even though I knew exactly what she would say, hearing her talk about her mother brought home the amazing historic impact of this moment and I'm all sobby.

I wasn't on board with her, even just a few months ago. Her militarism was (and is) the biggest mark against her, I didn't love the idea of having someone else from a family who'd already been in the White House in my lifetime running again, and I just plain didn't like her. I wasn't even in the US while she was First Lady, so was neither subjected to the relentless right-wing rhetoric nor had much awareness of specific policies she may have been associated with during her husband's time in office. Yeah, I thought it would be great to have a woman president, but not this woman.

I was excited about Sanders--a (democratic) socialist? in this country? woo!--until the bloom started coming off the rose. First, it was the dawning realization that his campaign's narrow focus on economics and class, while vitally important and refreshingly welcome, didn't allow much room for attention to issues important to me. To give just one example, women who, right now, have no viable options for reproductive healthcare don't have the luxury of waiting for class systems to be repaired. Then, Sanders disparagingly referred to Planned Parenthood as "establishment" after they endorsed Clinton, and I was really upset.

At that point, I had two Democratic candidates to choose from, neither of whom I liked much. None of the other candidates were remotely appealing to me, either, even without the Trump threat. I didn't know what to do. I started reading. I warmed to her a bit more, but still without great enthusiasm. On my way to the polls the day of the primary, I was still turning my options over in my head, and didn't decide for whom to cast my vote until I was standing in a booth with a ballot and a black pen.

I voted for Clinton. Not because she was a woman, not because I thought she was more "electable" (which I think is a dumb and vague criterion, anyway), but because despite my strong reservations for both candidates, I felt that she was the one who would be more likely to pursue and make actual headway on some key issues I feel strongly about. I also felt glad that Sanders' presence in the race made sure certain topics were given voice and weight they wouldn't otherwise have had, and accepted that I would just need to support downticket candidates and organizations that can try to influence decisions and policies in areas where I disagree (strongly) with her.

I've felt increasingly happy about my choice over the last couple of months, the more I've learned about her and watched her campaign, but only in the past week have I become truly enthusiastic. Between her Trump takedown the other day and tonight's amazing message of inclusiveness and collaboration, I am now genuinely excited to be here and to be a Hillary Clinton supporter. Let's go out and build some goddamned bridges!
posted by Superplin at 1:08 AM on June 8, 2016 [42 favorites]


Let's try this again.

I didn't find Hillary's speech inspiring or unifying, it seemed filled with calculated feel-good phrases delivered blandly.

It doesn't strike me as particularly useful to criticize a politician for being "calculated." All politicians must be calculated if they are to win elections.

This includes even those politicians who, like both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, make a great pretense of not being calculated.

Often, of course, those calculations turn out to be miscalculations, but that doesn't make them any less calculating.
posted by dersins at 1:32 AM on June 8, 2016 [11 favorites]


[Sorry but no, we're not going to have an extended debate about the "calculated" thing.]
posted by taz at 2:32 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


Just came here to idly wonder whether Hillary Clinton knows "Stronger Together" is Kara Zor El's motto on Supergirl...

Because if she does, awesome reference and good for Hillary for being even geekier than I thought. (And it would sort of count as a "dog whistle" -- a reference to a geeky show that only fan of the show would understand, which is a fun change from all the dog whistles which can only be understood by Evangelical Christians or by racists, on the Republican side... Woo hoo! Geek girl dog whistle!)

And if it's a coincidence (or even if not, I guess) I wonder what it says about what we expect from our female heroes and leaders in 2016 that both would end up with that slogan? Sort of self-effacing. It's not about one leader, it's about all of us together. I guess I kind of wish women could get away with being ego-maniacs like men, but whatever. It's true, anyway. We are stronger together. And yes... it does take a village to raise a child. :-)
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:39 AM on June 8, 2016 [14 favorites]


he majority of Sanders voters are the apathetic people who do feel outside the system. Sanders could have brought them in, but I don't see that groundwork being there at any time in the campaign.

To the extent that traditionally apathetic "non-voters" are in this election, they're in as symbolic voters out to find a non-Establishment candidate. This is a very vocal part of the base, a part that engages in a lot of online harassment and borderline eliminationist rhetoric, but this is a symptom of their style of political engagement more generally.

Sanders has done nothing to try to bring these voters into the mainstream in large part because they are voting against "the mainstream of the party" and for anything that is not that. The shame of Sanders's campaign has been the way it has pandered to this crowd; I think that's ethically wrong, but I also think it's a tactical mistake if Sanders is genuinely interesting in moving his ideas and preferred policies forward, as opposed to keeping the symbolism of his "outsider" candidacy going.

Frankly, once it became impossible for him to become the nominee, his campaign began focusing on those of his supporters who don't give a toss about policy; that this is largely because they are the only part of his base that will still be there if Hillary is the nominee.
posted by kewb at 3:09 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


NPR/AP: Clinton wins California.
posted by saturday_morning at 3:34 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]




Calling it now, Hillary will win and it'll all be decided on election night. Not sure she'll be a good President, but she trumps alternative, especially when appointing judges.

She'll have Bill and Barack campaigning for her. Add in Bernie and that's a helluva bench.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:07 AM on June 8, 2016


From the Tiger Beat on the Potomac article linked upthread:
In the days following, before Sanders scored his win in Indiana that campaign aides feel no one acknowledged because it came the same night Trump locked up the Republican nomination, the calls started coming in from Democratic power brokers.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s call was part advice, part asking a favor, urging Sanders to use his now massive email list to help Democratic Senate candidates. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin was the most obvious prospect, and Reid wanted to make introductions to Iowa’s Patty Judge and North Carolina’s Deborah Ross—to help Democrats win the majority, but also to give Sanders allies in making himself the leader of the Senate progressives come next year.

Reid, according to people familiar with the conversation, ended the discussion thinking Sanders was on board. He backed Feingold. But that’s the last anyone heard.

Word got back to Reid’s team that Weaver had nixed the idea, ruling out backing anyone who hadn’t endorsed Sanders. Weaver says it’s because the Senate hopefuls had to get in line for Sanders’ support behind top backers like Gabbard and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.)—though neither has a competitive race this year.

Sanders never followed up himself.
I really really really hope that's just shoddy reporting, because if that's accurate it sounds like Sanders is going to sit out campaigning after the convention. The downticket races are crucial, but he's just going to ignore anyone who didn't endorse him? I want to believe that he wouldn't sink retaking the Senate and possibly the House during the most optimal election season to do it in, all out of spite. But I'm a lot less sure than I was yesterday.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:30 AM on June 8, 2016 [16 favorites]


Wow. Rereading that Obama thread is trippy.
Also, now I really want to send the mods a giant fruitbooze basket. We haven't exactly learned and grown in the past eight years.
posted by Superplin at 4:30 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


The thing about Sanders is that even candidates who did support and endorse him, and who asked for his help, were left out in the cold. I live in Pennsylvania and I'm sure that if Sanders had told his supporters to vote for Fetterman, he could have won. It was a three-person race and Fetterman only needed about 40% to win. He was a big Bernie supporter, and it was really weird to read about Fetterman reaching out for support and hearing nothing from the campaign.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:38 AM on June 8, 2016 [17 favorites]


Also, I can see a lot of my dislike of Clinton stemmed from that primary season. Luckily for all of us, she has learned and grown since then.
posted by Superplin at 4:41 AM on June 8, 2016


Harsh but fair.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:00 AM on June 8, 2016




Snarky little article from The Telegraph: Why Bill Clinton Could Be the Best First Lady the United States Has Ever Seen

After reminding us that both Hilary Clinton and Michelle Obama won their rounds in the Family Circle First Lady Bake-Off:
While all previous First Ladies have had to go through the 1950s rigmarole of being perfect suburban wives, Bill will not face those same pressures. Not even because he is a former President, but because he is a man. This mere fact of biology means he is not expected to have cookie recipes up his sleeve, understand what décor would work best in the Oval Office, or wear the latest fashions, albeit demurely. He will not be trolled for his looks, or told to ‘drop a few pounds’ like Michelle Obama.

Even Hillary, who has gone through all of this herself, doesn't expect any of it from her husband.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:16 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


As someone who supported Sanders and voted for him earlier in the primary, the past couple of months have been disappointing to see. Not because Sanders lost, I considered him the long shot candidate, and was impressed by how far this unknown senator was able to get. I supported him because I appreciated his progressive message, but at some point his message took a backseat to his ego, and that's what's been so disappointing to see happen.

I've been gaining a lot of respect recently for Hillary Clinton, and am excited that I'll be able to vote for her this November. She earned the nomination, and I hope Sanders will come around and accept that.
posted by airish at 5:26 AM on June 8, 2016 [29 favorites]


Wouldn't it be awesome if Bill Clinton himself could call everyone's bluff about the stupid cookie thing? He should call reporters and offer up his favorite cookie recipe. I'm sure the NY Times would be willing to publish it, along with a look at the double standards with respect to the First Lady and the first First Gentleman.
posted by peacheater at 5:36 AM on June 8, 2016 [30 favorites]


He should give two cookie recipes, his favorite circa 1992 McDonalds-loving Bill Clinton cookie recipe, and his favorite now that he's Mr. Healthy Vegan guy.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:44 AM on June 8, 2016 [34 favorites]


I'd love to be the first First Gentleman purely just to drop my baking skills on America and watch them be all oh, snap, check out that quiche, his toenail polish is on point, too
posted by middleclasstool at 5:47 AM on June 8, 2016 [18 favorites]


By week five he's wandering around the White House in a U of A t-shirt and a shitty bathrobe, high-fiving people and randomly camping out in staffers' offices to talk about Penny Dreadful, eatin' Baked Lays
posted by middleclasstool at 5:52 AM on June 8, 2016 [12 favorites]


Bill: Day One. The Arsenio Hall Show is back, it's on C-SPAN now, every song gets a saxophone solo, and it airs seven days a week, four hours a night.
posted by box at 5:53 AM on June 8, 2016


It would be good if this meant the end of the cookie thing in all future elections.
posted by missmerrymack at 5:53 AM on June 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


Would be pretty shitty for Bill to make the first day/week about him. Hopefully he will keep a pretty low profile for at least a while.
posted by ryanrs at 5:54 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


Belatedly:

Nobody in this election can lay claim to honor.

Clinton can. She has consistently demonstrated a level of grace, dignity, restraint, intellect, insight, and leadership which has placed her above the fray and confirmed that she is far and away the most qualified candidate for the job and the one most likely to demonstrate the kind of quiet competence which has been among Obama's best attributes.
posted by multics at 5:55 AM on June 8, 2016 [67 favorites]


Greg Sargent: Top supporters of Bernie Sanders gently tell him: It’s time
The problem for Sanders is that this now requires him to explicitly call on the super-delegates to overturn the will of the voters as expressed in Dem primaries and caucuses. Given that she currently leads among them by 571-48, this would require a massive stampede away from the person who won far more votes.

Merkley — who is a super-delegate himself — said flatly that Sanders should not pursue this course any longer. “The super-delegates are set aside when you make the judgment that you have a majority of the pledged delegates,” Merkley told me. “I would not support a battle that involves trying to flip super-delegates.”

Grijalva, meanwhile, told me that he expected Sanders to continue trying to win over super-delegates, but only for a limited period of time.

“The reality is unattainable at some point. You deal with that. Bernie is going to deal with this much more rapidly than you think,” said Grijalva, who is also a super-delegate. “At some point, when we’re trying to flip 400 super-delegates, and it’s not gaining traction, I think you have to come to the conclusion that it’s not going to happen. You just move into a different direction. And that different direction is that we begin to try to integrate the party.”

“He’s gonna do the right thing,” Grijalva said.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:57 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


Why would Sanders ask Obama to meet with him?

Even if Sanders did ask for the meeting, I think it's going to involve some straight talk from Obama about how Sanders needs to behave himself going forward.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:58 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


NPR played a medley of individual eactions from the crop on a news clip on Senator Sanders's speech last night with the usual 'rigged system,' 'it's not over 'til it's over,'
and then some guy who said he'd vote for Trump if Sanders didn't get the nomination, adding 'might as well pop the Zit'' and bring on the Revolution yada yada.

My reaction was a combination of Oh, Jesus; I can't even and what an apt metaphor -- although to whom or what, the focus shifts.

Not to mention Popping zits ? On NPR ? Has it come to this ? Why I can't even Take Two...
posted by y2karl at 5:58 AM on June 8, 2016


Poll: Clinton Holds Four-Point National Lead Over Trump — or Does She

However, in our early test of a scenario where these third-party voters do in fact head to the polls in November, the results are far more damaging for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. This cuts against conventional wisdom, at least in the case of the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, where it would be reasonable to expect support would be taken away from the Republican side.

posted by Drinky Die at 6:11 AM on June 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


An online national poll 5 months out, before one party even selected their nominee, where 10% of the respondents aren't even registered to vote, let alone likely voters?

C'mon, bro.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:19 AM on June 8, 2016 [22 favorites]


I just heard NPR interviewing Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Raul Grijalva, supporters of Clinton and Sanders respective. Grialva made me cringe with just how totally unprepared he was, and in a way I think it reflects a microcosm of the entire Sanders campaign.

I say this, remember, as a Sanders supporter. Grijalva talked feelings a lot, but when the questions came to action and policy and the real workings of things he just sputtered and ummed and erred a lot.

Brown sounded like he'd been gargling gravel for the past forty years, but he had his shit together. He had a message, he stayed on message, he was able to answer questions in cognizant and sensible way.

As I look back on it, that's basically the differnece between Sanders and Clinton. Sanders and his supporters, like me, always had a lot of enthusiasm and high emotion, but there was never a good ground game, never a really solid answer from Sanders on the tough questions he was raising. And, frankly, I still don't think he was a very good candidate. Not awful, not Bush level incompetent, or Cruz level skinsuit, but awkward and never fully there in a policy sense.

While Clinton was organized and on point from the beginning with solid organization and groundwork.

Much like Occupy Wall Street, despite having identified an exestential problem that no one else seems to want to even admit exists much less address, Sanders just never gelled and never manifested the organization or plan that would be required to even have a conversation about the huge unspoken problem.

So here's to Clinton, I hope she beats Trump like a rented red headed step mule. She's talked about making Texas competitive and while that maybe hubris, I applaud her for her audacity.

I just also hope she can find the whatittakes to recognize the economic and social doom looming above us and admit that it exists. Because, and I've said this before, I'm convinced that if someone on the Democratic side doesn't do it soon there *will* be a Fascist revolution in the USA.
posted by sotonohito at 6:19 AM on June 8, 2016 [28 favorites]


An online national poll

From one of the few pollsters to get the UK election right. They are a legitimate survey. All polls are five months out unless you have access to time machine polling, bro.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:25 AM on June 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


C'mon bros, don't be like that. Remember, bros before polls!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:30 AM on June 8, 2016 [15 favorites]


If Trump actually gets the nomination (I have my doubts about that), I don't see him getting 40% of the vote. He is toxic.

Hey, if Bill Kristol can be a pundit, why can't I?
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:33 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


I actually think the more interesting thing is that it looks like Clinton might win the South Dakota primary. I would have predicted South Dakota being Bernie territory.

Two adjacent states, demographically similar (largely white/rural) and both contests on the same night near the end of the primaries. If Clinton holds on to SD, then this is more evidence that Sanders voters are more effective in caucuses.


My wife is a North Dakotan by birth, and we both got a chuckle at the divergent resuls, because we both imagine the Dakotas acting like bickering siblings shouting at each other, "You can't tell me what to do!"
posted by jonp72 at 6:34 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think it's time for Bernie to concede, but if he spends a few days lining things up before a formal concession, that seems pretty normal. I wouldn't have expected him to concede on the spot last night.

My wife and I are now ready to switch gears and support Clinton, but I have to say it's been quite aggravating to feel like the press and various pundits have been saying, "So, when ya gonna quit? When? When?" since like 6 months ago. I mean he's won what, 22 states and about 1/3 of the votes between him, Clinton and Trump? I definitely get why his supporters might be feeling a bit marginalized.

R.e. Trump, I just can't even ... my wife is a nurse with a lot of experience with elderly patients and she's been saying for months now that she's convinced Trump is in the early stages of dementia. She's not joking - she thinks his near-bizarre statements and actions are pretty classic indicators, and I think it runs in his family. It's certainly a more compassionate view than my own.
posted by freecellwizard at 6:40 AM on June 8, 2016 [19 favorites]


You never tell a crowd they lost or they are losing or they are losers. Ever. That's like, rule #1 of pacifying mob

I think it's worth examining your priors on this one! I have a weird amount of experience in pacifying mobs, in much more difficult situations (often after police violence) and I tell you my experience is that it can be done as long as you redirect. You can work them down instead of working them up. It's not as fun or exciting, but it is a thing you can do.

And I think Sanders needs to know its okay to dissipate or redirect the force. The Revolution is not today.
posted by corb at 6:41 AM on June 8, 2016 [13 favorites]


Hey, if Bill Kristol can be a pundit, why can't I?

If you're aspiring to be like Bill Kristol we may have to hold you back a year.
posted by delfin at 6:41 AM on June 8, 2016 [15 favorites]


My wife is a North Dakotan by birth, and we both got a chuckle at the divergent resuls, because we both imagine the Dakotas acting like bickering siblings shouting at each other, "You can't tell me what to do!"

I wonder if the divergent results can just be explained simply by the fact that ND was a caucus and SD was a primary. I'm not super familiar with the politics of the Dakotas, though. Are there are other reasons why, on the same day, one would go for Bernie by a huge margin and the other would give Hillary a narrow win?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:41 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh wow, I should have Googled before posting that about Trump. Apparently she's not the first one to notice that. For example this April Salon article.
posted by freecellwizard at 6:44 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


Can I put in a plea for Bernie supporters, especially red-and-purple-state Bernie supporters, to consider running for state legislature? I honestly think that's where the revolution needs to begin. First of all, it is sometimes possible to win a state legislature seat just through sheer force of will, hard work, and convincing your neighbors that you're an honest and competent person. Second of all, running is a great exercise: you'll learn a lot about the process and you'll meet local people and hear their concerns. Third of all, a lot of incredibly important stuff goes on in state legislatures, and you can do a lot of good if you get elected. And finally, our best hope for the future is to control state legislatures in 2020, so that Republicans aren't in charge of redistricting.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:46 AM on June 8, 2016 [42 favorites]



If Trump actually gets the nomination (I have my doubts about that), I don't see him getting 40% of the vote. He is toxic.


That is my instinct as well but after the whole Rob Ford mayoralty here in Toronto I learned that I have a lot to learn. I know it's a completely different context, but the lesson was that if you're able to tap into certain veins of resentment/anger/alienation/who knows what, you can get a lot of support despite having said toxic, ignorant, racist things and not showing any real signs you might actually have an aptitude for the job.
posted by beau jackson at 6:47 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


the lesson was that if you're able to tap into certain veins of resentment/anger/alienation/who knows what

Racist white guys aren't 40% of the population. The things that will come out about this guy when everyone's paying attention will make him anathema to everyone else. It's not all out yet.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:51 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


Does anyone have that link to the article telling people why they shouldn't rain on the parade of Hillary supporters today? I meant to favorite it, but alas.
posted by avalonian at 6:52 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Do you mean this one, avalonian?
posted by Stacey at 6:54 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yes! Thank you Stacey.
posted by avalonian at 6:55 AM on June 8, 2016


Speaking of Bill finding his new role in the White House, Roger Clinton's shenanigans are something the news is reporting again. I think part of Bill's new job should be keeping Roger out of trouble and getting him to get help for his drinking.

(I totally forgot that Bill had pardoned his cocaine conviction...ugh. Time to make up for that one Bill)
posted by emjaybee at 6:57 AM on June 8, 2016


Trump will get 40%. Easily. This is not going to be a McGovern-level ass-stomping unless Trump does something so far beyond the pale that absolutely no one can cover for it. Like, stopping in mid-debate to shit his pants, throwing a handful of it at Candy Crowley and screaming that All Non-Caucasians Are Now Illegal.

And even then he'd get 27%.
posted by delfin at 7:00 AM on June 8, 2016 [15 favorites]


Seriously, Sanders fans? I voted for Sanders in my state caucus, but I make my living doing statistics. And the statistical reasoning I've seen on display among Sanders supporters is just as ridden with confirmation bias and wishful thinking as the "unskewed polls" proponents in the 2012 Romney campaign.

Could you explain why the poll is statistically invalid and NBC News made a mistake to report it? Should they ask for their money back for sponsoring it?
posted by Drinky Die at 7:01 AM on June 8, 2016


Bernie went all-in on California, essentially ignoring New Jersey. He dumped millions into CA hoping to turn the superdelegates. And he has lost.

And not just lost -- Hillary will end with a close to 100 delegate gap between her pledged delegates and 2338.

I can believe him staying in last night since California wasn't called, but he now has no viable path that doesn't involve arrest, murder, or overturning the will of the people.

I hope an insider can explain to him that he's run out of road.
posted by dw at 7:02 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Welp, based on my facebook feed, this NPR article sure was prescient.
posted by avalonian at 7:07 AM on June 8, 2016 [14 favorites]



Could you explain why the poll is statistically invalid and NBC News made a mistake to report it?


Well, it's not a random sample ("non-probability survey") and the analysis includes explaining fluctuations in the noise by saying Clinton's two point gain is because of a speech the press liked Friday, instead of just the sort of thing that happens when you take polls.

In general, the press is quite bad with polling results and the convention on these stories requires them to report on each poll as if it is news, when it is not . . . . it's a minor data point that should be interpreted only in the context of all other data points.
posted by mark k at 7:09 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


Could you explain why the poll is statistically invalid and NBC News made a mistake to report it?

If you reframe that question: what did they report? They conclude that 'it is too early to know how much support third-party candidates will receive,' but they lead with the headline 'Clinton Holds Four-Point National Lead Over Trump — or Does She?'

She does, according to NBC News in the body of their own analysis, by a larger margin than in their last poll.

Their polling, if valid, shows that she does in fact lead over Trump, and they have not shown one way or another that any given third-party candidate will or will not have a strong impact on the race. That's not my conclusions: that's their conclusion.

If it's not statistically valid, that's a separate issue.
posted by cjelli at 7:09 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Right, their analysis includes all that. So what's the problem here?
posted by Drinky Die at 7:10 AM on June 8, 2016


Speaking of Bill finding his new role in the White House, Roger Clinton's shenanigans are something the news is reporting again. I think part of Bill's new job should be keeping Roger out of trouble and getting him to get help for his drinking.

If Roger Clinton is an addict, what can Bill do? If this was AskMeta and you gave that kind of advice to someone regarding how to handle their brother ("keep him out of trouble, get him to get help"), you would be shouted down, and rightfully so. Terrible advice.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:12 AM on June 8, 2016 [12 favorites]


This LGM post has some good points relevant to discussion here. Specifically, (1) the Politico article trashing the Sanders campaign suffers from the issue that Sanders did way better than expected and (2) in 2008 Clinton waited until the end of the primaries to formally concede.

I was thinking it would be gracious for Sanders to concede last night (and still kind of do) but waiting a week and a half is not a big deal especially if he starts attacking Trump. A convention fight is what we want to avoid.
posted by mark k at 7:15 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Right, their analysis includes all that. So what's the problem here?

Because they basically call themselves out for all the ways that this poll is not particularly meaningful but the headline is basically OMG TRUMP MIGHT WIN BECAUSE THIS SCIENCEY POLL.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:19 AM on June 8, 2016 [10 favorites]


I liked Boxer as my senator when I was in California. Pretty glad it's a sure thing that an awesome woman is going to replace her.
posted by R343L at 7:22 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


Some perspective:

*On May 28, 2008, Hillary Clinton wrote a letter to superdelegates to vote for her as she would be more electable.
*On May 31st, 2008, Hillary Clinton spoke to the DNC Rules Committee to argue with the rules and said she would take the race all the way to the convention.
*On June 3, 2008, as Barack Obama was declared the nominee that night, Clinton was introduced at her rally as "the next President of the United States".
*Just after that primary, a poll was taken in 2008 and 60% of Hillary Clinton supporters said they would vote for Barack Obama in the general.
*Last week, a poll was taken of Bernie Sanders supporters in which 72% of them said they would support Clinton in the general.

There were lots of calls the week before the first June primary for Hillary Clinton to drop out because she had 0% chance of winning enough delegates and she was hurting Barack Obama's chances.

I'm still giving Bernie Sanders the benefit of the doubt. He's meeting with Obama tomorrow and I will give him through the DC primary.

This is not the disaster it seems to be.
posted by Sophie1 at 7:22 AM on June 8, 2016 [70 favorites]


Trump will get 40%. Easily. This is not going to be a McGovern-level ass-stomping

Even McGovern got 37.5% of the popular vote. Even in a best-case scenario I expect Trump would still get around 40% of the popular vote, but I'm still hoping that translates to a "McGovern-level ass stomping" in the Electoral College.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:23 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


I liked Boxer as my senator when I was in California. Pretty glad it's a sure thing that an awesome woman is going to replace her.

too bad that feinstein will never retire and can sustain her life force indefinitely by draining orgone from junior aides

and i say this as a democrat
posted by murphy slaw at 7:29 AM on June 8, 2016 [8 favorites]


[A few comments removed. Dropping clickbait headlines into the thread isn't a great idea to start with; arguing at length about how there's nothing wrong with it is a definitely just hauling the thread in a dumb direction. Likewise, broken record here but if you're redirecting your annoyance at a specific thing or person or absent third party into a "candidate x fans", whether explicitly or implicitly those here on the site, that is not helping anything.]
posted by cortex at 7:35 AM on June 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump will get 40%. Easily. This is not going to be a McGovern-level ass-stomping

Even McGovern got 37.5% of the popular vote. Even in a best-case scenario I expect Trump would still get around 40% of the popular vote, but I'm still hoping that translates to a "McGovern-level ass stomping" in the Electoral College.


Mondale got 40 percent, too, and got his ass stomped worse than McGovern in the EC.
posted by Etrigan at 7:37 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


[Y'all we are not about to solve the problem of correctly distributing responsibility for addict behavior to family and friends on behalf of the Clinton family, and having a big hypothetical argument seems like a bad idea even by "things people decide to do in election threads for some reason" standards. Drop it.]
posted by cortex at 7:51 AM on June 8, 2016 [11 favorites]


NPR/AP: Clinton wins California.

What's surprising to me is that Clinton won pretty much every county that has a notable concentration of people (with a couple of smallish, superlefty exceptions: Santa Cruz, Humboldt). Usually the more progressive candidate will take the coast and the more centrist/conservative candidate will pick up the Central Valley (which is considered "agricultural" but has a population >6 million) and suburban SoCal, but the only areas Sanders won are almost uniformly very thinly populated.
posted by psoas at 7:53 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


Mondale got 40 percent, too, and got his ass stomped worse than McGovern in the EC.

That's from a different era though. Look at the 2012 Romney map. Which of the red states can you realistically see Trump losing?

(I would say Florida, North Carolina, MAYBE some single-digit wild card out west in decreasing order of probability. Texas isn't there yet. The Electoral College is why Hillary fans can breathe easy -- Trump has no realistic route to 270 -- but we're not going to see an All Red or All Blue map in this generation.)
posted by delfin at 7:55 AM on June 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Clinton family has had their private business invaded to a terrifying degree, even by political or celebrity standards. As much as possible, it's probably best to leave their private concerns to them.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:55 AM on June 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


Bill will not face those same pressures [as First Gentleman]. Not even because he is a former President, but because he is a man. This mere fact of biology means he is not expected to have cookie recipes up his sleeve, understand what décor would work best in the Oval Office, or wear the latest fashions, albeit demurely. He will not be trolled for his looks, or told to ‘drop a few pounds’ like Michelle Obama.

Bill was trolled for his weight as president and even more so as President Emeritus, FFS. You can take that one to the bank.

Instead of cookies, he'll be expected to barbecue (NOT grill) and have a killer chili recipe that includes beer. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some story about him fixing some fixture or bit of plumbing in the White House because it took too long for the official maintenance team to show up.
posted by msalt at 7:57 AM on June 8, 2016 [14 favorites]


Meanwhile on Twitter, @lizardmess is tweeting some hardcore awesome facts about FLOTUS's past:

Lou Hoover spoke five languages including Latin, which she used to translate books about rocks. I forget who she was married to. #FLOTUS

Polka dots were named after Sarah Polk, since she invented them. #FLOTUS
posted by emjaybee at 8:07 AM on June 8, 2016 [19 favorites]


Clinton didn't just win California, she crushed Sanders there. I'm actually fairly amazed at the result. 13 points!
posted by Justinian at 8:07 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


...And now she tells me the Polk thing is made up. I bet Lou Hoover was still cooler than her husband though. Quit telling me wonderful lies, internet.
posted by emjaybee at 8:08 AM on June 8, 2016 [8 favorites]




The blue wall for Democrats is virtually unassailable at this point. There just aren't enough reliably red states for Republicans to lose more than a single small battleground state. And that's before demographic changes where older white people are dying off faster than young brown people gain the right to vote. Republicans needed to go all in to gain hispanic voters and instead they are going full nativist because their base is super conservative and super white and panicking about the erosion of their privilege.

Considering that in the south for instance people have been educated to vote for conservatives because conservatives want to maintain a social order where even the poorest whites are higher in social order than blacks.

They also try to maintain a system where lower class white males are valued higher than any female.

Obama and Clinton threaten to undermine the dominant social paradigm and thus must be hated.
posted by vuron at 8:14 AM on June 8, 2016 [11 favorites]


Instead of cookies, he'll be expected to barbecue (NOT grill)

As if half the country can tell the difference!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:17 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton and Biden need to have a barbecue every weekend and work on cars on the white house lawn and pull out the bowling alley and make an awesome mancave with beer signs and pool tables and hustle white house staffers.

Bands should be invited to play but need to perform behind chicken wire in case shit gets rough.
posted by vuron at 8:19 AM on June 8, 2016 [16 favorites]


Metafilter: Quit telling me wonderful lies, internet.
posted by Superplin at 8:20 AM on June 8, 2016 [8 favorites]


Obama Nominee for Ambassador Dies After Waiting 830 Days for Confirmation, Thanks To One GOP Senator

From that article:
In a New York Times an op-ed by Frank Bruni, who had spoken to Butts about the standoff two weeks before her death, Butts confronted Cotton over his continued hold. "She told me that she once went to see [Sen. Tom Cotton] about it, and he explained that he knew that she was a close friend of Obama’s — the two first encountered each other on a line for financial-aid forms at Harvard Law School, where they were classmates — and that blocking her was a way to inflict special pain on the president."

Bruni contacted a spokesman from Cotton's office, who did not dispute the details of meeting, going on to stress that Cotton had "enormous respect for her and her career." For Tom Cotton, being qualified for a position has nothing to do with appointing someone to that position. This was personal.
Sen. Cotton is, sadly, not up for re-election anytime soon. This is the same Sen. Cotton who, lest we we forget, penned An Open Letter To Iran to try and bypass the President's diplomatic efforts there.
posted by cjelli at 8:20 AM on June 8, 2016 [14 favorites]


Obama Nominee for Ambassador Dies After Waiting 830 Days for Confirmation, Thanks To One GOP Senator

Charlie Pierce: Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton Should Be Shamed Out of Office
The column tells the story of a woman named Cassandra Butts, who recently passed away from leukemia at the age of 50. In 2014, prior to her diagnosis, the president proposed to name Butts the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas—which sounds to these ears anyway to be a pretty sweet gig. That was when the nonsense began. First, Tailgunner Ted Cruz put a hold on all nominations because he was upset with the deal the president cut with Iran, and because the Tailgunner is an unlikable algae of a human being. Later, our man Cotton jumped in and slapped a hold on Butts and a couple of other nominees for ambassadorships.
[...]
(By the way, according to Bruni, Cotton's office basically confirmed Butts's account of their meeting, but the coatholders also made sure Bruni knew that Cotton "had enormous respect for her and her career." Yeah, blow me, Gomer.)

Tom Cotton weaponized a dying woman's final days in order to "inflict special pain" on the president. Tom Cotton is a petty, sadistic swine who has the basic conscience of a cholera outbreak. He should be shamed from office, and he should be shunned by decent people.

God, I hope there's a hell, and that it's as advertised by Dante.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:24 AM on June 8, 2016 [19 favorites]


Indeed. Don't settle for an amateur like Trump. Greg Stilson 2016!

Now I want to get one of my designer friends to do up, in Trump styling, a STILSON 2016: MAKE AMERICA GLOW AGAIN shirt.
posted by phearlez at 8:24 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]




Being back in the White House is gonna be pretty sweet for Bill. All of the perks of living there, none of the responsibilities like the last time.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:26 AM on June 8, 2016


Tom Cotton is on the rise, kids. I bet he'll be running for the big room in 2020. And he believes God has anointed him to run things.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:26 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


My 6 year old daughter probably won't remember too much of the 2016 campaign but I am hopeful that when she's 10 and 14 having a role model as PotUS will be an inspiration.

You know assuming that Hillary doesn't get paid 73 percent of the male PotUs salary.
posted by vuron at 8:29 AM on June 8, 2016 [8 favorites]


Obama Nominee for Ambassador Dies After Waiting 830 Days for Confirmation, Thanks To One GOP Senator

NOT EVEN A LINK TO THE ONION HOW WHY

where is my app to launch republicans into the sun
posted by poffin boffin at 8:30 AM on June 8, 2016 [13 favorites]


Haha as if the FLOTUS isn't basically a full time gig.

Bill will be opening so many elementary schools he is going to be losing weight.
posted by vuron at 8:31 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


What's surprising to me is that Clinton won pretty much every county that has a notable concentration of people (with a couple of smallish, superlefty exceptions: Santa Cruz, Humboldt). Usually the more progressive candidate will take the coast and the more centrist/conservative candidate will pick up the Central Valley (which is considered "agricultural" but has a population >6 million) and suburban SoCal, but the only areas Sanders won are almost uniformly very thinly populated.

I guess I'm not really convinced Sanders is the more progressive candidate than Clinton, tho
posted by beerperson at 8:32 AM on June 8, 2016 [10 favorites]


Ezra Klein: It’s time to admit Hillary Clinton is an extraordinarily talented politician.
There is something Rebecca Traister wrote in her terrific profile of Clinton that I have been thinking about for weeks. She began by admitting what everyone admits. Clinton is not a great campaigner. She does not give great speeches.
Oh, yes she does.


There's also a good quote from the profile Klein cites:
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.
posted by Gelatin at 8:32 AM on June 8, 2016 [22 favorites]


Bill will be opening so many elementary schools he is going to be losing weight.

He's lost a hell of a lot of weight in the past 16 years. Could we stop going on about it?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:33 AM on June 8, 2016 [18 favorites]


My 6 year old daughter probably won't remember too much of the 2016 campaign but I am hopeful that when she's 10 and 14 having a role model as PotUS will be an inspiration.

You should absolutely have her volunteer for at least one day and get some adorable pictures. She will have bragging rights for the rest of her life, and imagine how exciting election night will be in November!

And if she ever decides to run for office, those pictures will be GOLD.
posted by msalt at 8:36 AM on June 8, 2016 [21 favorites]


What's surprising to me is that Clinton won pretty much every county that has a notable concentration of people (with a couple of smallish, superlefty exceptions: Santa Cruz, Humboldt). Usually the more progressive candidate will take the coast and the more centrist/conservative candidate will pick up the Central Valley (which is considered "agricultural" but has a population >6 million) and suburban SoCal, but the only areas Sanders won are almost uniformly very thinly populated.

This supports my theory that Sanders' support is essentially bimodal. You have a group that's interested in him because he's running to the left of Clinton on economic issues - these are sort of your socialist true believers (among whom I'd include most of the Sanders supporters on Metafilter, for the record). And you have those who are voting for Sanders essentially because he's not Clinton - these supporters are probably to the right of the average Clinton supporter on many issues, particularly those to do with race and gender. This group is exemplified by the NY Times commenter I saw who said that he voted for Sanders in the primary, but would vote for Trump in the general, as he has a "visceral dislike" of Clinton, is not a feminist and thus doesn't see anything in it for him in a Clinton presidency and feels he would "survive" a Trump presidency. As Sanders' campaign became more negative, more of his supporters proportionally came from the second block. Thus you see the strange distribution of Sanders votes in California - a few superleft counties plus more conservative rural counties that have more people who can't stand Clinton.
posted by peacheater at 8:37 AM on June 8, 2016 [23 favorites]


Tom Cotton is on the rise, kids. I bet he'll be running for the big room in 2020. And he believes God has anointed him to run things.

"...Then go forth, Tom, and meet your destiny as President of the United States!"

"Thank you, God! I won't fail you!"

::cough::

"Er...Holiest of Holies?"

"Yes, my child?"

"Far be it from me to question You, the Alpha and the Omega, Lord of All Creation, but..."

"What troubles you, Peter?"

"Didn't you already promise Ted Cruz the Presidency?"

"Well, I FUCK"
posted by Sangermaine at 8:37 AM on June 8, 2016 [7 favorites]


Tom Cotton is a petty, sadistic swine who has the basic conscience of a cholera outbreak

Front-runner for the VP slot, then?

Trump/Cotton 2016: America Great, Conscience Free!
posted by nubs at 8:39 AM on June 8, 2016


I really didn't mean anything by it other than I deeply respect the schedule that modern Flotuses have maintained. It is by no means a low stress job and in some ways I think it's much more challenging on a physical level due to the near constant social calendar.

It definitely will not be sitting around drinking beer.
posted by vuron at 8:39 AM on June 8, 2016


The almighty needs to stick to determining who wins football games, the endorsement of Bush was a big mistake.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:40 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


Due to Bill's gender, I believe he will be FGOTUS. Which looks and sounds darn weird.
posted by bearwife at 8:41 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


He's already requested 'First Laddie' hasn't he?
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:43 AM on June 8, 2016


Bill for GOTUS!
posted by Blasdelb at 8:43 AM on June 8, 2016


BroTUS?
posted by nicepersonality at 8:44 AM on June 8, 2016 [15 favorites]


"That's from a different era though. Look at the 2012 Romney map. Which of the red states can you realistically see Trump losing?"
Its a very different era today, Trump could very easily lose North Carolina as the Research Triangle attracts more young liberal voters and Trump turns off the Republican aristocrats. His racist bullshit painting Texas blue isn't at all a stretch, much less Arizona. Particularly as Puerto Rico collapses and leaks blue voters by the planeload into Florida, it may not even resemble a swing state anymore. Hell, even Missouri and Georgia aren't nearly as Red as you'd tend to think should the penicillin mold delicately balanced on a windbag fuck up hard enough.
posted by Blasdelb at 8:44 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


Due to Bill's gender, I believe he will be FGOTUS. Which looks and sounds darn weird.

Totus FGOTUS.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:47 AM on June 8, 2016 [15 favorites]


...As many Sanders supporters have bitterly noted, superdelegates provide an anti-democratic mechanism for the establishment to stop voters from making a choice they dislike.

If Sanders would have won more votes, more states, and more pledged delegates, but been denied the Democratic nomination by superdelegates, his supporters would have erupted in outrage, denouncing the nomination as stolen and illegitimate.

Those same supporters cannot in good faith support a Sanders push to secure the nomination with superdelegates now that he has won fewer votes, states, and pledged delegates. It would be farcical for a man who says he’s running to inspire a “political revolution” to ascend to power via party elites subverting the will of voters.

“To all of those Bernie Sanders voters who have been left out in the cold by a rigged system of superdelegates,” Donald Trump said Tuesday during his victory speech, “we welcome you with open arms.” As usual, Trump’s rhetoric was at odds with reality. The superdelegate system didn’t cost Sanders the nomination—in fact, if it didn’t exist, he would have no path to the nomination at all. As hard as it is for his supporters to accept, his victory would be less legitimate than a victory by his opponent.
The Hypocrisy of Sanders's Superdelegate Push
posted by y2karl at 8:48 AM on June 8, 2016 [13 favorites]


God, I hope there's a hell, and that it's as advertised by Dante.

I assume Cotton will be in Malebolge, the eighth circle of Dante's Inferno, home of the fraudsters, which is itself divided into ten stone ditches (bolgias).

Probably he'd immersed in boiling pitch in the fifth Bolgia with the other corrupt politicians, but perhaps instead he'll be in the ninth bolgia being hacked to pieces for all eternity with the rest of the sowers of discord.

I'm good with either, really.
posted by dersins at 8:49 AM on June 8, 2016 [9 favorites]


Yeah, Bill would totally rock First Lad Of These United States (FLOTUS).

I'm having a hard time with how excited I am. I knew this moment would come even as I voted for Sanders in the NY primary, and every time I've had to point out to friends that they're basically repeating unfounded Republican propaganda from the 90s, my admiration and respect for Senator Clinton has grown.

This moment has been inevitable for the last few weeks - and yet, here we are, and I'm just buzzing with excitement.

This is going to be amaaaaaazing.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:50 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


BroTUS?


Et tu, BroTe?
posted by dersins at 8:51 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


Here's a big difference with 2012: Clinton’s hoped-for bulwark is college-educated white women. Obama lost this group by 6 points in 2012; Clinton leads among them by 24 points, 57-33 percent, in our latest data.

I just don't see how a Republican can win with those numbers.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:52 AM on June 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


I assume Cotton will be in Malebolge, the eighth circle of Dante's Inferno

well, things have changed - he'll be condemned to eternity in joebob's infernal diner - pork rinds for breakfast, lunch and dinner - no beverages

tabasco sauce optional, except on sunday and monday, where it's mandatory
posted by pyramid termite at 8:57 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


I guess I'm not really convinced Sanders is the more progressive candidate than Clinton, tho

That's fair. I guess I elided a bit without thinking - the point I was trying to make is that Clinton won ALL the regions I mentioned. "Sanders territory" includes maybe (but probably not quite) 10% of the state population.
posted by psoas at 9:00 AM on June 8, 2016


Looks like Walker's not angling for VP.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:00 AM on June 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: beats Trump like a rented red headed step mule.
posted by sammyo at 9:00 AM on June 8, 2016


a group that's interested in him because he's running to the left of Clinton on economic issues - these are sort of your socialist true believers

Socialist true believers hate Bernie for lying about being a socialist.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:00 AM on June 8, 2016 [8 favorites]


Probably not the right form but question: why does a candidate need to announce their "loss"? I get at a major election there's a formality but how does it change anything? Will vote in the general be swayed? Will big donors just give more to the "proscriptive" candidate? Super politico-brownie points? I've known for months that Hil would get the nomination, but until there's a vote at the convention it's not technically over.
posted by sammyo at 9:05 AM on June 8, 2016


Probably not the right form but question: why does a candidate need to announce their "loss"? I get at a major election there's a formality but how does it change anything?

They don't need to announce their loss, but I think they need to concede in order for their most ardent supporters to get on board with the person who is actually going to be the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:07 AM on June 8, 2016 [8 favorites]


The point is to rally the candidate's supporters around the person who is the nominee.
posted by cooker girl at 9:07 AM on June 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


sammyo Legitimacy mostly. When one party concedes it legitimizes the victory of the other, it declares that the system stands, that the procedures were followed, and that the winner won fairly in the eyes of the loser.

It isn't a step to be taken lightly (I'm talking to you Al Gore you sniveling coward), but it is something that should be done.
posted by sotonohito at 9:09 AM on June 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


The general election loser also concedes before the Electoral College technically votes.
posted by zutalors! at 9:09 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think it's also more respectful to the losing canidate's followers. You want to thank them for their work and faith.
posted by zutalors! at 9:11 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


why does a candidate need to announce their "loss"?

because eventually, even in the general election, political opponents have to cooperate with each other to govern

something the republicans seem to have forgotten lately

but if senator sanders wants to have president clinton's ear, it would be wise of him to concede ASAP
posted by pyramid termite at 9:12 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


I posted on Facebook that I can't even imagine what the Clinton/Trump debates will be like and a friend immediately posted a link to this video. And, well. Yeah.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:15 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


Cotton sounds like an asshole, but I do think maybe there could be legitimate reasons to not want to confirm the president's college buddy as ambassador to the Bahamas.
posted by corb at 9:16 AM on June 8, 2016


because eventually, even in the general election, political opponents have to cooperate with each other to govern, something the republicans seem to have forgotten lately

HOW DARE, that Paul Ryan guy is totes supportive
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:16 AM on June 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


why does a candidate need to announce their "loss"?

because eventually, even in the general election, political opponents have to cooperate with each other to govern

if senator sanders wants to have president clinton's ear, it would be wise of him to concede ASAP



Because " there's no need to get snippy about it".
 
posted by Herodios at 9:18 AM on June 8, 2016


For those wondering about the ND caucus results: the total number of votes was 364. It's more evidence of how caucuses suck than of Sanders' strength in ND vs SD.
posted by tavella at 9:20 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


My Facebook feed right now is super disheartening. Top guy is a super-religious conservative, bottom guy is a Bernie Bro.
posted by stolyarova at 9:20 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


maybe there could be legitimate reasons to not want to confirm the president's college buddy as ambassador to the Bahamas.

"he explained that he knew that she was a close friend of Obama’s — the two first encountered each other on a line for financial-aid forms at Harvard Law School, where they were classmates — and that blocking her was a way to inflict special pain on the president." (link from upthread)

I mean, yes, there could be legitimate reasons. But "because I want to inflict special pain on the president" probably isn't one?
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:20 AM on June 8, 2016 [34 favorites]


It says right in the article:

Her qualifications not in dispute, all that remained was a routine Senate confirmation.
posted by cooker girl at 9:23 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


I mean, yes, there could be legitimate reasons. But "because I want to inflict special pain on the president" probably isn't one?

This, but also, I don't remember Cotton being so zealous about stopping GWB's political donors, Skull & Bones bros, and mountain biking buddies from getting cushy ambassador gigs. I'd love it if we ended this practice of Presidents rewarding personal friends with ambassadorships, but that's how it's been for decades. To suggest Cotton is taking a principled stand against the practice is laughable.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:26 AM on June 8, 2016 [19 favorites]


Yeah, Bill would totally rock First Lad Of These United States (FLOTUS).

I'll admit, I voted for Sanders back in the NY primary. I support single payer health care and breaking up banks and things that he campaigned on, and I don't really care about Clinton and Sanders as people so much as proposed policies.

I also admit I'll be supporting the Democratic nominee which is now obvious.

But one thing I really don't like about Clinton's campaign is the inclusion of Bill. This is something that it took me some time to turn around on and even as recent as 2012, I watched with enthusiasm as Bill Clinton drummed up support for Obama's reelection. However, his personal behavior (having an affair with your intern isn't just good ol' fun as there's a massive power imbalance that we would crucify a Republican president for) and his policies (neo-liberalism's zenith) make me not want him to speak at all.

I'm not holding Hillary accountable for marrying or continue to marry him as that's really all her business and there's not a "wrong" decision, but I really wish he would stop speaking (such as when he voraciously defended the "super-predator" actions) and that H. Clinton would not talk about putting him in charge of the economy because he knows how to stimulate it or some other neoliberal BS.

In the end, I'm not going to not vote for her based on the actions of Bill, but I really wish that he would fade into the background. I think Hilliary is both a better human being and has the capability of being a better President than he was.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:26 AM on June 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


I posted on my Facebook feed that while I have serious, serious reservations about Ms. Clinton, we all need to get the eff on board the train, because choo choo, let's not die and blow up our country, and have had an extremely positive response.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:27 AM on June 8, 2016 [11 favorites]


For those wondering about the ND caucus results: the total number of votes was 364.

No this is not correct. That is the number of delegates selected to the state convention where they will then select the 18 delegates to the national convention.

You always have to be careful of caucus results. In many states they only report the number of state delegates selected, not the actual thousands of voters who selected them. You have to did deeper into the party reports to find out how many voters attended the caucuses.
posted by JackFlash at 9:27 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


Cotton sounds like an asshole, but I do think maybe there could be legitimate reasons to not want to confirm the president's college buddy as ambassador to the Bahamas.

Read her bio and call her "the president's college buddy" again. Confirming her as ambassador wouldn't have set a precedent that some guy named Dave who was on the same dorm floor as the president 40 years ago automatically gets to set foreign policy.
posted by Etrigan at 9:27 AM on June 8, 2016 [15 favorites]


Yeah no - that guy is irredeemable. But I would vote against even a very well qualified presidential crony of either party, based on the appearance of impropriety, and I object to the idea that because this guy is a dickweasel, everyone voting against her must have also been.
posted by corb at 9:28 AM on June 8, 2016


If you are going to follow national head-to-head polls, look at reports that aggregate multiple polls, not individual polls:
RealClearPolitics, General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
HuffPost Pollster, 2016 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

But remember the only thing that really matters is the Electoral vote.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:28 AM on June 8, 2016


Congratulations to the people who have been supporting Hillary throughout the race. I was, personally, more closely aligned with Bernie's policies, but now that the deal is sealed I feel myself warming up to Clinton. She isn't my perfect candidate, but her speech last night highlighted her possible strengths against Trump, and her potential as president. I'll be supporting her, donating to her, and voting for her in the subsequent election.

Still, I don't think that this will be a run-away. The right wing has been cultivating hatred for Clinton for 30 years, if not more. I think that, objectively, she will demolish Trump in public performances of policy, but having listened to his supporters, I don't think that policy matters for them in this election. The question is how that reality plays out in battleground states, and how effectively the Fox News establishment is able to mud rake Hillary's past. I'm hoping that the Democratic {arty is able to get its head out of its ass (in comparison to the last midterm election) and really rally the majority of this country that seems to be opposing Trump.
posted by codacorolla at 9:29 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah no - that guy is irredeemable. But I would vote against even a very well qualified presidential crony of either party, based on the appearance of impropriety, and I object to the idea that because this guy is a dickweasel, everyone voting against her must have also been.

Every one who voted against her and didn't vote against Bush's flunkies is a dickweasel.

Wait, that's all of them, at least all of the ones who were in Congress at the time.

So yeah, they're all dickweasels.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:29 AM on June 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


Those RCP averages are terrifyingly close. +/-2%? Jesus.
posted by stolyarova at 9:30 AM on June 8, 2016




everyone voting against her must have also been.

Nobody voted against her, Cotton filibustered her appointment so nobody could vote.
posted by peeedro at 9:31 AM on June 8, 2016 [21 favorites]


That makes slightly more sense, JackFlash. But I still think caucuses suck compared to primaries.
posted by tavella at 9:32 AM on June 8, 2016


Yeah no - that guy is irredeemable. But I would vote against even a very well qualified presidential crony of either party, based on the appearance of impropriety

"Crony"? They went to Harvard Law School at the same time.

and I object to the idea that because this guy is a dickweasel, everyone voting against her must have also been.

See, that's the problem: No one got to vote against her. A few Senators used procedural bullshit to keep her from even getting a committee vote, much less a full up-or-down confirmation vote.
posted by Etrigan at 9:32 AM on June 8, 2016 [12 favorites]


What a dill weed. Sanders is going back to the Senate, but he's squandering any power he could have wielded in the next Congress.

This is tremendously wrong in what will actually happen and rightly so. It's wrong on precedent - look back to how the Dems coddled the far less cooperative with their goals Lieberman - and it's wrong on accomplishing things. Why on earth would the Senate dems want to freeze out someone who will pass their proposals when they're running a show on that tight a margin?

If you're peeved that Sanders isn't running the playbook in a way that you think is in the best interest of democrats then it is flat-out insane to want democrats to be punitive towards him.

Remember when one of McCain's supporters said something racist about Obama and McCain stood up for Obama?
That's how you stand up to your supporters.


Let's remember that McCain told that supporter no, he's not a muslim. Not no he's not a muslim and there's nothing wrong with being muslim.

Yeah, Bill would totally rock First Lad Of These United States (FLOTUS).

I'm totally imagining him dressed as Angus Young now and it's your fault.

In the end, I'm not going to not vote for her based on the actions of Bill, but I really wish that he would fade into the background.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Wish in one hand and poop in the other, see which one fills up first. Bill Clinton remains a very popular person amongst the people HRC can expect to vote for her. He's going to be out there stumping till the end.
posted by phearlez at 9:32 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]




I object to the idea that because this guy is a dickweasel, everyone voting against her must have also been.

Nobody voted against her because there never was any vote because one person, Cotton, prevented a vote.
posted by JackFlash at 9:34 AM on June 8, 2016


I am very socialist but also extremely pragmatic.
I would rather get 80 of what I want rather than get zero percent of what I want.

Vote for preference in in the primaries and vote for the candidate most likely to get you what you want in the general election.

I would prefer no lynch mobs so no Trump for me.
posted by vuron at 9:34 AM on June 8, 2016 [10 favorites]


Thanks for the correction that it was a hold and not a filibuster or cloture vote situation. In that case, the defense of Cotton makes even less sense, and is just IOKIYAR special pleading.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:37 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is it just me or is this Tom Cotton stuff a bit of a derail of this thread?
posted by like_neon at 9:37 AM on June 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


Calling a man a dickweasel is not defending him, man.
posted by corb at 9:38 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Calling him a dickweasel but saying that he was totally justified in being a dickweasel because of the appearance of impropriety looks a lot like defending him.
posted by Etrigan at 9:39 AM on June 8, 2016 [14 favorites]


Nobody voted against her, Cotton filibustered her appointment so nobody could vote.

Not a filibuster. A filibuster is a collective refusing to lend your vote to cloture and prevent the needed 60 votes to continue. It's really kind of iffy to call the actions of a single person a filibuster; to pull one off you need at least 41 people (presuming everyone is seated; in reality there's always some quantity of folks fucked off so what you really need is 60 people to overcome a filibuster.).

Kirk, as links point out above, was a single lone one person with a hold, a different (and amazingly, even more moronic) procedural maneuver that the Senate rules allow.

The only commonality between a hold and a filibuster is that they're not constitutionally obliged to exist. They are part of the rules Congress applies to itself and which can be changed at any time. How easy they are to change varies between the start of a new Congress and mid-Congress.

Calling a man a dickweasel is not defending him, man.

A minimization of someone's actions by portraying them as shared responsibility is a defense, just not a full-throated one. Just like "well, but everyone else was doing it too" is not a complete denial but is absolutely a call for reduced blame.
posted by phearlez at 9:40 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


It was the Vermont senator who personally rewrote his campaign manager’s shorter statement after the chaos at the Nevada state party convention and blamed the political establishment for inciting the violence.

He was the one who made the choice to go after Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz after his wife read him a transcript of her blasting him on television.

He chose the knife fight over calling Clinton unqualified, which aides blame for pulling the bottom out of any hopes they had of winning in New York and their last real chance of turning a losing primary run around....

There are many divisions within the Sanders campaign—between the dead-enders and the work-it-out crowds, between the younger aides who think he got off message while the consultants got rich and obsessed with Beltway-style superdelegate math, and between the more experienced staffers who think the kids got way too high on their sense of the difference between a movement and an actual campaign.

But more than any of them, Sanders is himself filled with resentment, on edge, feeling like he gets no respect -- all while holding on in his head to the enticing but remote chance that Clinton may be indicted before the convention.
Inside the bitter last days of Bernie's revolution
posted by y2karl at 9:42 AM on June 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


The specific instance of Cotton placing a hold to block a nominee is a bit of a derail, sure, but the larger issue of Republicans obstructing everything and being defended for doing so because they simply must be acting on principle is very relevant to the Presidential race given that their hatred of Clinton probably exceeds their hatred of Obama.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:42 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


David Rees, acclaimed pencil sharpener, has some interesting speculuations to share.
posted by Ipsifendus at 9:45 AM on June 8, 2016 [7 favorites]


In its official press release the Sanders campaign touts the "Bernie or Bust" slogan.

Gives credibility to that Politico piece.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 9:48 AM on June 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


the enticing but remote chance that Clinton may be indicted before the convention

Clinton isn't going to be indicted. The State Department report is a nothingburger and there's no sign of any criminal intent. The first-ever woman to be a major party candidate and probable next president is not going to be indicted.

Trump's more likely to be criminally liable for some of the Trump University stuff, and he's not going to be indicted either.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:49 AM on June 8, 2016 [9 favorites]


That Politico piece is kind of crazy, makes Jeff Weaver look more sane than Sanders.
posted by zutalors! at 9:50 AM on June 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


I was reading this rundown of the GOP's demographics problem, and this is something that I often forget, as a person born in the late 80s:

[GHW] Bush’s 426 electoral votes [in 1988] were the fewest that the GOP presidential nominee won that decade. Ronald Reagan won the White House in 1980 with 489 electoral votes and followed that up with 525 in 1984.

When people lambast Bill Clinton for being a damn dirty centrist and say that Hillary Clinton is going to do the same stuff now, I think they might be forgetting this. Seems pretty likely that a damn dirty centrist was the only person who could have successfully challenged that level of Republican dominance in the 1980s, and even if you think the Clintons are in lockstep agreement on everything (which they clearly aren't), 2016 isn't 1992.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:51 AM on June 8, 2016 [23 favorites]


From Steve King on Death and Taxes:

To call the coming Republican National Convention in Cleveland a shit show is an understatement. It’s an abomination. Imagine the Gathering of the Juggalos and a self-help seminar for thousands of Patrick Batemans, all in celebration of a reality TV show host nominee with 100% name recognition and a Nazi bend. You get the picture. The bully has reached the pulpit.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:52 AM on June 8, 2016 [13 favorites]


Driving home NPR was covering Trump's speech and using phrases like "on message" repeatedly, in contrast with his blatant racism attacking a judge for being "Mexican." The subtext--though I'm sure they'd deny it--is that this was what really counts. They want the non-racist stuff to be the "real" campaign so they can do their banal "even handed" schtick and tell you whether he has sound tactics or whether the demographics favor him in swing states.

This morning, NPR noted that Trump hasn't quite executed the much-heralded "pivot" to a more "presidential persona, focusing over the angst Republican Party leaders have expressed over Trump's vendetta against the judge in his Trump University lawsuit (which did, by the way, successfully knock the revelations of the obvious fraud that was Trump U out of the news cycle).

While reporter Sarah McCammon did note the, ah, contradiction of Trump using a teleprompter despite his previous condemnations, her report was entirely about style and completely eschewed substance. She (and I'm sure much of the Beltway media establishment shares the same feelings) is clearly aching for an excuse to judge Trump on style and not substance -- who cares if his policy prescriptions are stull lunatic, as long as he seems more "presidential." The press seems mostly disappointed in Trump for denying them that opportunity and making them instead work for a living.

Speaking of polling, NPR's Asma Khalid examined 2012's polling and reported that Trump could improve over Romney's electoral map by gaining a larger white male vote -- presuming Trump gets the same level of support among women and minorities that Romney did.

In other words, Trump doesn't have a hope, and I actually admired the way NPR managed to report that fact while pretending to report on his possible path to victory. (And by the way, Trump could go ahead and win Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and Iowa and Michigan -- and still lose to Clinton.)
posted by Gelatin at 10:02 AM on June 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Place your bulk orders for popcorn now, folks: Hearings In Trump University Cases Scheduled For Start And End Of GOP Convention
posted by zombieflanders at 10:03 AM on June 8, 2016 [16 favorites]


When people lambast Bill Clinton for being a damn dirty centrist and say that Hillary Clinton is going to do the same stuff now, I think they might be forgetting this.

Well, sort of - people are mad that Clinton seemed to sell out Democratic Ideals in order to drag the party to the right. The question is: how far to th