100 days
July 29, 2016 3:13 PM   Subscribe

With America's general election 100 days away, and another two months before the first debate, Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine are off on a bus tour through Pennsylvania and Ohio (events), while Donald Trump campaigns in Ohio and Colorado. Where The Election Goes From Here
posted by roomthreeseventeen (3427 comments total) 79 users marked this as a favorite
 
Thank you, R317!
posted by mochapickle at 3:16 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


There's an election?
posted by schmod at 3:16 PM on July 29, 2016 [33 favorites]


oh god just let it be over
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:17 PM on July 29, 2016 [37 favorites]


I don't know if I can take another 100 days of this.
posted by infinitywaltz at 3:17 PM on July 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


Holy Moly Guacamole! Another thread!
posted by OmieWise at 3:17 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


We can do this! CAFFEINE/DRAMAMINE 2016!
posted by mochapickle at 3:19 PM on July 29, 2016 [38 favorites]


See the exhaustion thread one door down...
posted by rtha at 3:20 PM on July 29, 2016 [17 favorites]


Clinton campaign also hacked.

Soooo now enterprising journalists look for evidence that anything in the leaks was altered, right?
posted by schadenfrau at 3:22 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Our theme song: Sharon Jones & The Dap-Kings, "100 Days, 100 Nights."
posted by kirkaracha at 3:22 PM on July 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


Just posted this on the old thread, but... Trump just said if he loses, it's not his fault, it's "because you people get lazy, you don't vote."

I honestly think the thing that is going to kill the Republican Party isn't the Trump campaign, it's going to be how badly he and his followers react/act out after the hopefully obvious loss. We're 100 days out and he's already hinted at or explicitly started blaming his voters, the Republican Party, vote fraud.
posted by chris24 at 3:23 PM on July 29, 2016 [37 favorites]


I bought my Hillary merchandise last night. So stoked to step out in my Washingtonians for Hillary shirt with both my small children in Hillary logo duds.

I asked my husband if he wanted anything and he asked for "dog stuff" - our dogs still use their Obama bowl and collar from 2012. I pointed out to him that given the popular slurs used to refer to women it's not surprising that there isn't a Hillary dog bowl on offer through official channels. SIGH
posted by town of cats at 3:23 PM on July 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


The Reuters poll today is so weird. Trump goes up two points when Johnson and Stein are included? How the heck does that happen?
posted by Justinian at 3:30 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


There's only 1557 more days until the 2020 U.S. election!!
posted by FallowKing at 3:30 PM on July 29, 2016 [23 favorites]




Demonstrating he is not feeling stung by HRC's (and the President's and lots more people's) stinging remarks about his lack of temperament, Trump has explained that he has the "best temperament."

I'm sold, aren't you? Or do I mean conned?
posted by bearwife at 3:31 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Speaking of striking down voting restrictions, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also struck down North Carolina's.
posted by bearwife at 3:33 PM on July 29, 2016 [34 favorites]


Trump goes up two points when Johnson and Stein are included? How the heck does that happen?

I'm guessing its people who are sane enough to never vote for Trump, but really don't like Hillary. Give them any other option and they take it.

This has been consistent for a while (both Johnson and Stein help Trump when included).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:34 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


FallowKing: "There's only 1557 more days until the 2020 U.S. election!!"

I swear to the sea gods and the gods of the harvest I will stuff you in that wicker man.
posted by boo_radley at 3:34 PM on July 29, 2016 [95 favorites]


Clinton campaign also hacked.

Okay, I've been a fan and supporter of Clinton for years and will happily vote for her November, but the pic they chose to lead that article is hilarious. She has the perfect "What the fuck is this thing?" face staring into that monitor.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:35 PM on July 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


From the "conned" article: Bloomberg, an actual billionaire, and Trump, an alleged billionaire

Hah
posted by thefoxgod at 3:35 PM on July 29, 2016 [42 favorites]


bearwife is quicker on the draw than I am. I was just getting to that -- and how the ruling cites the way Republican legislators used racial voting data to target the black population with that law.

This is all some incredibly nasty shit.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:37 PM on July 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Clinton campaign also hacked.

Ugh, I just felt queasy about them having my credit card info, then realized that's a bonus to these Russian and/or Trumpian pricks if folks feel reluctant to donate to Clintin online goddamnit the future suuuucccks sometimes.
posted by EatTheWeak at 3:37 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]






I'm guessing its people who are sane enough to never vote for Trump, but really don't like Hillary. Give them any other option and they take it.

I think you misunderstand me. I don't mean that Trump gains two points on Clinton when Johnson and Stein are included, I mean his number goes up 2 points!

It's Clinton 40, Trump 35 in a two way race, and Clinton 37, Trump 37, Johnston 5, Stein 3 in a four way.
posted by Justinian at 3:40 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


The great thing about all these voting rights rulings is that, if they take them to SCOTUS on appeal this year, the best they can hope for is a 4-4 split upholding the repeal. Better yet, some or even most of the rulings from the Circuits seem to be aimed at pushing Kennedy into a 5-3 decision.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:49 PM on July 29, 2016 [22 favorites]


Exactly. These decisions should hammer home how important the Supreme Court appointments are going to be. If one of the conservative Justices had been replaced with an Obama appointment for the Shelby decision, it would have gone the other way. Or if we were stuck in our current 4-4 situation, the Court of Appeals decision upholding the constitutionality of Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would have stood.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:54 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's Clinton 40, Trump 35 in a two way race, and Clinton 37, Trump 37, Johnston 5, Stein 3 in a four way.

Possibly just within the margin of error? Especially if its not the exact same people being asked (I can see benefits both ways --- if you ask the same people the question both ways, the first question biases the second some).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:58 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh yeah, just looked it up and they are completely separate polls, so 2% difference is well within usual margins of error.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:59 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


That's weird, I assumed they asked the same people.
posted by Justinian at 4:05 PM on July 29, 2016


Stein is polling at 3%? That's an order of magnitude better than she did last time, that seems unlikely to be real.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 4:06 PM on July 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


There's only 1557 more days until the 2020 U.S. election!!

You shut your sloganhole, FallowKing!
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 4:06 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I want footage of Hillary's acceptance speech, interspersed with news footage about the three voting law rulings today. It should be edited in the style of the baptism scene from "The Godfather."
posted by drezdn at 4:09 PM on July 29, 2016 [30 favorites]


What can we do now? I'm really fired up and want to make this happen.

I just read about Ann Coulter mocking Khizr Khan as an angry Muslim man with a thick accent on the Washington Post and made the mistake of scrolling down. Who are all these horrible people?
posted by peacheater at 4:12 PM on July 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


From the previous thread: OK I have to turn off the livestream. Just hearing Trump's voice raises my blood pressure too much.

I can't tell you how much it sucked to be working out at the gym and every time I lifted my head, there he was yapping away. I didn't opt into the audio, obviously, but just the idea that he was on for at least 30 minutes on CNN with no break away shots, no reporters, nothing just him, was infuriating. Well just him and a big banner below reading: Trump: Clinton's speech was just average. They left that banner up all the time he was on and through whatever reporter stuff was going on afterward like it was the sacred holy text handed down from Mt. Sinai. Ugh. Of course Trump doesn't need to buy ads-- CNN just gave him uninterrupted time to say whatever the hell he wanted to for 30 minutes.

Don Pepino: I remember I objected in the 1990s to the constant harassment of her based on her hairbands and failure to bake cookies and suchlike, but then I couldn't understand why, as wife of the president, she was making policy.

Yes that was the established response back then, "Why should she be making policy, we didn't elect her!" Yes, the voters did not elect Hillary but they still expected her to work for free and be at their beck and call and do what she was told to do. Being FLOTUS is an "honor" and ladies were supposed to be grateful and do their duty. And of course no FLOTUS would ever be allowed to hold down an outside job even if they are, say, a lawyer specializing in civil rights.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:14 PM on July 29, 2016 [43 favorites]


Wired: How the DNC pulled off that colossal balloon drop

I can hear the discussion at the RNC for years hence: Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow a balloon drop gap.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 4:16 PM on July 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


What can we do now? I'm really fired up and want to make this happen.
Well, for my part I looked into the Democratic opponent to the Republican incumbent in my Congressional district and was absolutely appalled that clicking on "Donate" took me to an error page. More distressingly, the incumbent has outspent the Democrat by orders of magnitude and his most recent page update involved appearing with Bernie Sanders at the ONCenter months ago. And worst of all, my district is apparently one of 10 that has the slightest chance to turn blue in NYS this election season. DAMN YOU DEMOCRATS FOR BEING AWESOME AT SNATCHING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY.
posted by xyzzy at 4:17 PM on July 29, 2016 [15 favorites]


I just read about Ann Coulter mocking Khizr Khan as an angry Muslim man with a thick accent on the Washington Post and made the mistake of scrolling down. Who are all these horrible people?

People who can't stand that white males aged 18-49 are no longer a hegemony that the whole world answers to. The political machine having to answer to women, queers, minorities, foreigners, and other traditionally ignored groups means there's less time for them.
posted by Talez at 4:17 PM on July 29, 2016 [29 favorites]


Stein is polling at 3%? That's an order of magnitude better than she did last time, that seems unlikely to be real.

3rd party candidates tend to poll better than the election day results. Stein, for example, isn't on the ballot in half the states including Virginia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Missouri, and Minnesota.
posted by Justinian at 4:17 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


People who can't stand that white males aged 18-49 are no longer a hegemony that the whole world answers to. The political machine having to answer to women, queers, minorities, foreigners, and other traditionally ignored groups means there's less time for them.

When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
posted by stolyarova at 4:19 PM on July 29, 2016 [109 favorites]


Who are all these horrible people?

In a way, it's nice to know that some percentage of them could always be paid Russian disinfo trolls trying to destroy our faith in one another at this crucial time.

(i always thought I'd be more stoked to wake up in a Neal Stephenson novel)
posted by EatTheWeak at 4:19 PM on July 29, 2016 [30 favorites]


Also, it was mentioned in a previous thread that we should engage in subtle psychological warfare against Trump. Someone proposed sending him child-sized mittens, but those will only confirm his suspicion that he has Giant Hands.

We need to send him extra extra large gloves with the size tags removed for maximum psychic rustlement.
posted by stolyarova at 4:21 PM on July 29, 2016 [25 favorites]


I just read about Ann Coulter mocking Khizr Khan as an angry Muslim man with a thick accent on the Washington Post and made the mistake of scrolling down. Who are all these horrible people?

It was so odd -- when Khan was speaking, I was hearing my own immigrant Dad. He could have given that exact same speech. Totally different people, totally different experiences, totally different countries, but something about the universality of the immigrant experience, I guess. Dunno. But it was pretty powerful, hearing my Dad channeled through that guy. Plain dealer who didn't take grandstanding bullshit.
posted by Capt. Renault at 4:23 PM on July 29, 2016 [32 favorites]


I can hear the discussion at the RNC for years hence: Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow a balloon drop gap

Speaking of, did corb ever reveal what happened there?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:24 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton leads Trump by 6 points after Democratic confab: Reuters/Ipsos poll.

But, as America's Dad Tim Kaine would say, let's don't get cocky.
posted by stolyarova at 4:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [12 favorites]




I just read about Ann Coulter mocking Khizr Khan as an angry Muslim man with a thick accent on the Washington Post and made the mistake of scrolling down. Who are all these horrible people?

Coulter is a troll in the classic sense. She says outrageous shit to get a rise out of people. Just ignore her.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


I was going through Trump's press conference from a couple of days ago and this particular part stood out to me:
TRUMP: No. He's not going to run for mayor. Oh, Don (ph)? He's not going to run for mayor. Don (ph) has no attention of running for mayor. But he did a great job the other night with his speech. Because he made a good speech, everyone says he should run for mayor. You know why? Because we have a Democratic mayor who's horrible, he's doing a horrible job, de Blasio. But Don (ph) is not going to run for -- he has no interest in running for mayor.
That sure comes across like Don Sr. is the decider in that family. Like perhaps Don, Jr. would be interested in running for office but his father needs him to do stuff. There is room for one leader in that family.

I wanted to say that I did get a good laugh out of your coverage of his rally from today. More and more this guy is coming across as completely out of his depth to an absurd level. Say what you will about her but at least Palin knew she was deficient and tried to study with flash cards. Trump doesn't bother to study anything because so far his abysmal ignorance hasn't been a drawback to his voter base. They are either just as ignorant or they don't care. Still I can't help but see him as a guy who won a ping pong game in his friend's basement and now thinks he is ready to play in the NBA finals.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


But, as America's Dad Tim Kaine would say, let's don't get cocky.

Trump: TIM KAINE IS A HOMOPHOBE!
posted by Talez at 4:26 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Next stop Willoughby!
posted by fairmettle at 4:26 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton leads Trump by 6 points after Democratic confab: Reuters/Ipsos poll.

25 percent of people picked Neither/Other! We still have a lot of persuading to do.
posted by peacheater at 4:28 PM on July 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump doesn't study because he's legitimately a malignant narcissist. He doesn't believe he can be improved upon.
posted by stolyarova at 4:29 PM on July 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


The Houston Chronicle has decided they don't need any more time to think about it. They endorsed Clinton today. Think this might be the earliest I've seen a newspaper endorsement in a presidential election.
posted by honestcoyote at 4:30 PM on July 29, 2016 [39 favorites]


WaPo endorsed HRC a couple days ago.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:33 PM on July 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


Does anyone have any resources/links to great write-ups about how important it is not only for Clinton to win, but to win *big*?

Basically looking for elaboration/expansion on some of peacheaters comments from a previous election thread:

Imagine if the Left said, you know what, we've got your back, we're definitely voting Democrat. The Democrats would have the freedom to pick more left-wing candidates because they could be sure that they would get that solid block of votes.

Also really enjoyed You Can't Tip a Buick sharing their activist friends comments:

instead, think of your vote as your choice about which terrain you would prefer to ‘do battle’ within


I know too way, way too many radical left "anti-$hillary" types who don't want to see Trump elected, but are protest-voting Stein or opting out because the democratic ticket will win our state anyway (which is true).

I'm looking for rebuttals to "voting your conscience" and protest-voting and opting out of the election - anything anyone can provide would be super helpful.
posted by windbox at 4:34 PM on July 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


That sure comes across like Don Sr. is the decider in that family. Like perhaps Don, Jr. would be interested in running for office but his father needs him to do stuff.

Sounds more like the narcissist won't abide having anyone else in the spot light.
posted by schadenfrau at 4:34 PM on July 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Think this might be the earliest I've seen a newspaper endorsement in a presidential election.

The Washington Post was on it a week ago.
posted by dersins at 4:37 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm looking for rebuttals to "voting your conscience" and protest-voting and opting out of the election - anything anyone can provide would be super helpful.

In general or in their situation?

In their situation: "Safe states don't stay safe if people don't vote."
posted by Sangermaine at 4:40 PM on July 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


I take that back. "The Post's View" doesn't count as their editorial endorsement, according to my better half.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:40 PM on July 29, 2016


The Post will obviously endorse Clinton but, yeah, they weren't going to do it before she was officially the nominee.
posted by Justinian at 4:42 PM on July 29, 2016


I'm looking for rebuttals to "voting your conscience" and protest-voting and opting out of the election - anything anyone can provide would be super helpful.

A little melodramatic but gets the job done.
posted by Talez at 4:43 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm looking for rebuttals to "voting your conscience" and protest-voting and opting out of the election - anything anyone can provide would be super helpful.

Time. Proper grieving over Bernie — as they used to say, allow 4–6 weeks for delivery.
posted by argybarg at 4:44 PM on July 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


I can't tell you how much it sucked to be working out at the gym and every time I lifted my head, there he was yapping away.

I hope you were doing low-rep high-weight stuff because that actually seems like a really excellent way to spike one's adrenaline
posted by Greg Nog at 4:44 PM on July 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


The Colorado Independent: Trump starts and ends Colorado Springs speech by ripping the local fire marshal

“That’s why we’re going to hell.”
We have thousands of people in a room next door,” he said. “We have thousands of people trying to get in and we have a fire marshal that says ‘No, we can’t allow more people in.'”

Trump said it was “so unfair” to those who couldn’t make it inside the 1,500-capacity auditorium.

“They won’t let them in, and the reason they won’t let them in is because they don’t know what the hell they’re doing, that’s why,” Trump said to loud cheers. “That’s why our country has — hey, maybe they’re a Hillary person. Could that be the answer? Probably.”

Trump called it a “disgraceful situation,” adding, “this is the kind of thing we have in federal government also, by the way, and then you wonder why we’re going to hell. That’s why we’re going to hell.” [snip]

Following the speech, Brett Lacey, the fire marshal in question, said in an interview he is a registered voter but declined to say whether he is a member of a political party.

“It doesn’t matter to me,” he said. “We’re just here to do the job.”
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:47 PM on July 29, 2016 [73 favorites]


I'm looking for rebuttals to "voting your conscience" and protest-voting and opting out of the election - anything anyone can provide would be super helpful.

Here is a rather wonky rundown of the grounds for Lesser Evil Voting.
posted by dis_integration at 4:50 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


This particular fire marshal, by the way, has 36 years of experience in the fire service industry serving in the ranks of firefighter, paramedic and fire protection engineer up to his current position. But of course keeping people out of a rally makes him incompetent.

From his CSFD bio, he serves on national safety committees and has written several fire safety qualification manuals.
posted by mochapickle at 4:51 PM on July 29, 2016 [54 favorites]


CNN: Trump on 'lock her up' chant: 'I'm starting to agree'
"I've been saying let's just beat her on November 8th. But you know what, I'm starting to agree with you," Trump said.
The comments, which came in his first public appearance since Clinton ripped him in her speech at the Democratic National Convention Thursday night, marked an about-face for Trump, who in the last week has resisted joining in on his supporters' chants and instead urged them to channel their anger at the ballot box.

"You know it's interesting. Every time I mention her, everyone screams 'lock her up, lock her up.' They keep screaming. And you know what I do? I've been nice," Trump explained to his supporters in this evangelical bastion of Colorado Springs. "But after watching that performance last night -- such lies -- I don't have to be so nice anymore. I'm taking the gloves off."
There would be "no more Mr. Nice Guy" Trump vowed, ignoring his yearlong track record of pillorying Clinton on the campaign trail, including raising her husband's White House sex scandal and referring to her as a "nasty, mean enabler."
I think he is rattled, guys.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:52 PM on July 29, 2016 [37 favorites]


I prefer this argument for lesser evil voting.
posted by aspo at 4:52 PM on July 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


For those of you in solidly red states, or with radical friends in such places, please vote and convince your friends to vote Clinton and straight line Democrat in the election. The Republican governors and legislators will just have a chuckle over votes for Stein or write-ins for Bernie, but seeing Democrats get higher percentages than usual will put the fear of God into them. Plus, it will encourage others to show up and vote Democratic in future elections. I'm sure a lot of Democratic voters stay home because they don't feel like it matters much in places like Kansas.

I know the Democrats in red states are going to be even more "sellouts" than the national party. Lots of blue dogs still exist on the local level. But if those Democrats had some power here, we wouldn't have the Secretary of State committing outright voter fraud. PP would still have some degree of state funding. And the schools wouldn't be laying off teachers and facing yet another budget crisis.
posted by honestcoyote at 4:52 PM on July 29, 2016 [51 favorites]


the fire marshall thing is just.... Trump seems like he may be unravelling. The Russia hacking stuff, his barrage of angry tweets this morning, saying that he wanted to beat up the DNC speakers, and now this. I guess the only question is whether the right finally wakes up and steps back, or if they just continue to descend into madness with him. Based on the how things have gone so far, I reckon it'll be the latter.
posted by gatorae at 4:53 PM on July 29, 2016 [20 favorites]


Trump has unraveled into a near tie for the Presidency. I honestly don't think his voters care about anything. Literally anything.
posted by Justinian at 4:55 PM on July 29, 2016 [75 favorites]


I've been trying to explain to all my "concience vote" friends that even if they are in the safest of states, the total electoral tally matters. If Trump just barely loses to popular vote, we will be back in this exact place in four years. The most horrible elements of our society will see themselves as validated. Being a complete asshole will be viewed as a workable electoral strategy. Basically, if we don't absolutely crush Trump numerically today, we will have to face him or worse again tomorrow. Throwing your vote to Jill Stein will not help.
posted by phooky at 4:55 PM on July 29, 2016 [61 favorites]


Trump said during today's rally that when he said hit, he meant with words.
posted by mochapickle at 4:56 PM on July 29, 2016


I guess I'll add "fire safety" to "not rounding up our own citizens" and "keeping foreign powers from influencing our elections" on the list of lessons I thought we had learned but I guess not.
posted by ckape at 4:56 PM on July 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


And in lighter news...

The Mirror: Justin Bieber has SNUBBED Donald Trump's offer
Justin Bieber turned down an offer of £3.8million to perform a concert funded
by Donald Trump’s ­Republican Party.

The $5m offer caused manager Scooter Braun – who discovered Biebs as a youngster – to threaten to quit if he took part.

Promoters reportedly assured CAA, which ­represents the Sorry singer, 22, that he would not have to promote the party’s policies as his 45-minute set would be a “non-political” event, taking place close to the Cleveland venue where the Republican National Convention was held this month.
Well if they had $5 million to give to Bieber why couldn't they find anyone else? Surely somebody would have done it? Are there no broke-ass pop stars out there?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:56 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Fivethirtyeight had an interesting post about polling and predictions earlier: Why our model is bullish on trump for now
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 4:57 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


The NYT had an interesting visual comparison of the two candidates acceptance speeches (sorry if already linked somewhere - I did a quick search on the site and the link didn't bring back any results - but maybe there is a better way to double check these things?)
posted by hilaryjade at 4:57 PM on July 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


HE'S GONNA PULL A MUSKIE! TRUMP/IBOGAINE 2016!
posted by vrakatar at 4:57 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Have the national media picked up the fire marshall thing yet? Yes, it's just another stupid thing that Trump said. But even the craziest Republicans I know understand why fire codes exist. When his rants veer from political issues to basic aspects of society maybe some potential voters will see just how nuts he really is.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:57 PM on July 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


WaPo didn't endorse Clinton, they just said that no one should vote for Trump.
posted by waitingtoderail at 4:58 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm looking for rebuttals to "voting your conscience" and protest-voting and opting out of the election - anything anyone can provide would be super helpful.

France 2002?
posted by the return of the thin white sock at 4:59 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Many Repubs and many white men hate Hillary, so my tactic with people like them is going to be "do you hate Hillary more than you love America? Cuz Trump will damage America."
posted by vrakatar at 5:00 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


If Trump just barely loses to popular vote, we will be back in this exact place in four years.

Even if he gets utterly crushed, it doesn't matter: 2020 is likely going to be a fucking hell-nightmare of an election. Given the level of support Trump has touting a basically-fascist platform, even with every single fuckup he's committed, all it's gonna take is someone just as authoritarian but slightly-less-dim (like just BARELY more capable!) to swoop in and re-energize the same field of people. Assuming Clinton wins: four years from now, we're gonna look back at 2016 with longing for such a frazzled, easily-unbalanced little shit.
posted by Greg Nog at 5:01 PM on July 29, 2016 [59 favorites]


The Houston Chronicle may have endorsed Clinton but Trump has an endorsement from a bona fide terrorist. Terror suspect endorses Trump in phone call from federal prison
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:01 PM on July 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


For those of you in solidly red states, or with radical friends in such places, please vote and convince your friends to vote Clinton and straight line Democrat in the election.
I have begged my parents, who just became FL residents and live there 6+ months out of every year, to please, PLEASE inconvenience themselves and vote their brains out. They've seen news coverage of long lines due to FL's disenfranchisement efforts but I told them that this was far too important to let an annoying queue get in their way. I think I've reached them.
posted by xyzzy at 5:01 PM on July 29, 2016 [20 favorites]


Given the level of support Trump has touting a basically-fascist platform, even with every single fuckup he's committed, all it's gonna take is someone just as authoritarian but slightly-less-dim (like just BARELY more capable!) to swoop in and re-energize the same field of people.

Imagine somebody with Trump's megalomania and fascist impulses without Trump's total lack of an attention span and lack of discipline. Imagine that person with a national audience.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:03 PM on July 29, 2016 [21 favorites]


yeah, i have zero faith that crushing trump this year will ensure that the same fascist demagoguery from someone slightly more capable doesn't pop up next presidential election, or in off-year elections either. that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to crush him - it just means to not get complacent after this election and think the job's done
posted by burgerrr at 5:05 PM on July 29, 2016 [20 favorites]


For those of you in solidly red states, or with radical friends in such places, please vote and convince your friends to vote Clinton and straight line Democrat in the election.

I am heading to Tennessee in October. My grandmother's neighbor has an enormous TRUMP TRAIN sign in front of his house, and I'm told it's hard to miss due to the size and all the blinking lights. This is a part of the state where it's not unusual to see confederate flags flying proudly. I'm gonna do what I can.
posted by mochapickle at 5:06 PM on July 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Promoters reportedly assured CAA, which ­represents the Sorry singer,

I'm guessing that's supposed to be "Sony?" LOL either way.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:09 PM on July 29, 2016


yes, this makes sense:
The Republican governors and legislators will just have a chuckle over votes for Stein or write-ins for Bernie, but seeing Democrats get higher percentages than usual will put the fear of God into them.

Also, if nothing else, throwing a vote to the greens after the leftward move the democratic party has made would be bad behaviorism. The party may not be not all the way to where you want it to go, but it's moving in that direction. If you want the party to continue to move left, reward it for moving left. If it moves left and doesn't find a reward, it won't keep moving left and may move right again.
posted by Don Pepino at 5:10 PM on July 29, 2016 [70 favorites]


No, "Sorry" is one of his big songs. "Sorry singer" as in "the guy who sings 'Sorry'".
posted by thefoxgod at 5:11 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


My grandmother's neighbor has an enormous TRUMP TRAIN sign in front of his house, and I'm told it's hard to miss due to the size and all the blinking lights.

Just cover the first T with a rainbow flag under the cover of night and see how long said neighbor takes to notice.
posted by Talez at 5:11 PM on July 29, 2016 [50 favorites]


I assumed he had a song called "Sorry" but either way that's bad phrasing.
posted by mmoncur at 5:11 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, if nothing else, throwing a vote to the greens after the leftward move the democratic party has made would be bad behaviorism. The party may not be not all the way to where you want it to go, but it's moving in that direction. If you want the party to continue to move left, reward it for moving left. If it moves left and doesn't find a reward, it won't keep moving left and may move right again.

I'm seeing a lot of denial of this from my BoB acquaintances. I wish it were more baffling.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:12 PM on July 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


One way you can summarize the reasons to be ok with lesser evil voting without saying "grow up" condesecndingly would be (an interpretation of the Halle/Chomsky piece):

Voting is not an action of moral approbation, but simply the marginal impact of one vote on the victory or loss of the two major parties. One's "conscience", insofar as it comes into play, should be directed towards the direct negative consequences of a far-right victory on oppressed peoples, on the environment, and so on. So if you have a "conscience", your moral duty is to above all prevent the victory of the right. What's more, if the right wins, those who protested the center and threw their votes away will be blamed, making it even harder in the future to advance leftist positions within the political system and find any audience for them in the mainstream. They will be dismissed as dangerous given their consequences in the past. Which, in a sense, will be a legitimate move on the part of the center. So not only do you aid and abet the victory of the right and are complicit in the moral disaster it will bring about, but you also harm any future progress for the left within the political system. I'm almost certain that Sanders would tell you the same thing.
posted by dis_integration at 5:13 PM on July 29, 2016 [61 favorites]


Not trying to silence anyone but I have to say that gaming out how the margin of victory may or may not affect the election in 2020 is giving me hives. Please let's get through this one (and preferably 3.9 years after) first.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:16 PM on July 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Please let's get through this one (and preferably 3.9 years after) first.

Ignore off-year elections at your (and other's) peril.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:19 PM on July 29, 2016 [36 favorites]


“We have thousands of people trying to get in and we have a fire marshal that says ‘No, we can’t allow more people in.'”

To cheap to rent a larger hall? Sad!
posted by drezdn at 5:19 PM on July 29, 2016 [66 favorites]


I did not intend to suggest we go to sleep in between Presidential elections, but maybe I should have clarified that. I thought that would be obvious. Guess not, apologies.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:20 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Naw! Really, Pope Guilty? But how they gonna deny? Look, take any chicken. Using this simple method of offering rewards for incremental progress, you can train that chicken to move from one side of its cage to the other side! Simple! Are the BoBs arguing that the democratic party is smarter than a chicken? Sad.
posted by Don Pepino at 5:21 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


The thing that is going to kill the Republican Party isn't the Trump campaign, it's going to be how badly he and his followers react/act out after the hopefully obvious loss. We're 100 days out and he's already hinted at or explicitly started blaming his voters, the Republican Party, vote fraud...

Oh, yeah, when Trump loses, he's going to accept zero blame for it. Besides his voters, the Republican party, and vote fraud (Twain: but I repeat myself), you can also include:

The RNC television producers
Mike Pence
posted by box at 5:21 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


For the couple-few people that know me, I never comment. But I had to try to say something.

So, rather against my will, I find myself in Southwest Virginia again. And guys, it's scary out here. I see handmade Trump signs in lawns when I go to take out the trash. Lots of Confederate flags, NRA stickers on pickup trucks, those stupid 'Don't Tread On Me' tea party license plates. And I can't find a place to volunteer for Hillary that isn't an hour's drive away.

I'm fucking scared, okay? I don't see this part of the state going blue. I'm trying to do what I can-- there's a diversity rally happening tomorrow that's only a half hour drive away, in a mid-size town with middle class aspirations, and I plan to be there. But it doesn't look half as organized as Obama's supporters did in this same region in 2008.

This is middle America, I guess. But for the love of god, don't get complacent. Volunteer. Organize. Donate if you can. There is a very real fight on our hands.
posted by dogheart at 5:23 PM on July 29, 2016 [117 favorites]


Who are all these horrible people?

they're real americans, just ask them
posted by pyramid termite at 5:23 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm looking for some people in the campaigns' traveling press to follow on Twitter (or Twitter lists of them). Who are the best? Humor appreciated.
posted by acidic at 5:23 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can't he please just do something sufficiently illegal that he gets disqualified for being in prison? He tries nearly every damn day! Yesterday he committed treason, today he tried to violate fire codes. God above, what's it gonna take?
posted by Don Pepino at 5:24 PM on July 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


So Trump is doing his New Nuremberg rally in Colorado Springs? Home of the Air Force Academy and like a half dozen conservative mega churches? Wow he really is pushing into some hostile territory to convince the independents. Where is he going to do the next rally?
posted by vuron at 5:24 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wired: How the DNC pulled off that colossal balloon drop

Great article, thanks for sharing! I'm really surprised that both the RNC and DNC drops were done by the same company.
posted by joedan at 5:25 PM on July 29, 2016


He'll be in Denver tonight.
posted by mochapickle at 5:26 PM on July 29, 2016


Can't he please just do something sufficiently illegal that he gets disqualified for being in prison?

Not actually a disqualification. The only qualifications are age, natural - born- Ness, and residency.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:28 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Not actually a disqualification. The only qualifications are age, natural - born- Ness, and residency.

You could totally run for prez from prison and then once you win you can pardon yourself, boom.
posted by dis_integration at 5:29 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm looking for rebuttals to "voting your conscience" and protest-voting and opting out of the election - anything anyone can provide would be super helpful.

Noam fucking Chomsky on Democracy fucking Now on voting for Clinton in the general: "I don’t think there’s any other rational choice."
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:30 PM on July 29, 2016 [63 favorites]


I find the Fire Marshall thing utterly chilling. I know it probably doesn't seem like much compared to all the horrible things Trump has said, but I think it reveals how far Trump is willing to go over something so small. This is just a guy trying to do his job and keep people safe in the most mundane way imaginable, and he will probably now be the target of harassment because Trump was annoyed.

Imagine what he would do to protestors or other people who opposed his policies.
posted by lunasol at 5:31 PM on July 29, 2016 [70 favorites]


If Beiber had standards, he'd take the money and pull a "Third Eye Blind".

If "Ethical Hackers" existed anywhere but fictional TV shows like Mr. Robot, Trumpy's IRS records (returns and audit reports) will become public knowledge well before the election. And there's no doubt in my mind EVERY year's audit will include a "not legal BUT..." statement more damning than Hillary's email report.

But please remember Donald Trump has been on a self-promotion binge for literally decades, even longer than the very-well-funded campaign to discredit Hillary Clinton. There's a need for Hillary to do more to "redefine herself" than she has done already. But more than any communication/advertising effort, a MASSIVE GetOutTheVote campaign is vital, to overcome Republican dirty tricks, to ensure victory AND run up the score and to provide 'coattails' that'll change the complexion of Congress and State Capitals. (And some large donor should pony up some money to defend EVERYONE under a Trump NDA who wants to spill the beans)
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:32 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Okay, this made me feel much, much better. Thank you, [expletive deleted].
posted by Don Pepino at 5:33 PM on July 29, 2016


You could totally run for prez from prison

Eugene Debs did it in 1920. Got slightly over 3% of the vote.
posted by waitingtoderail at 5:33 PM on July 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


You could totally run for prez from prison and then once you win you can pardon yourself, boom

Gene Debs did it. He didn't win, though, so no confirmation on the pardon part.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:34 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


To cheap to rent a larger hall? Sad!

What does Trump look like, some kind of billionaire?
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:34 PM on July 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


Jinx
posted by Thorzdad at 5:34 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wow he really is pushing into some hostile territory

I'm here and I'm really hostile. We're not all horrible fuckwits.

I just screamed "fuck you" at NPR in the Walgreens parking lot when David Brooks was complaining that Hillary didn't establish an emotional connection during the speech because she was "too guarded." Like - she's not running for your mom in chief. If you didn't feel an emotional connection when the first women nominee spoke, maybe that's on you. You're going to cede power to some megalomaniac orangoutang because Hillary didn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy? What the fuck is wrong with you?

And guarded? No shit, she's guarded. Having a convention center full of people yelling for your incarceration would make anyone guarded.

So I just took the money that I would donate to NPR and sent it to Hillary's campaign instead.

And I apologize to the family whose kids were outside my car when I was cursing at the radio. That was irresponsible of me.

So yeah, hostile.
posted by bibliowench at 5:34 PM on July 29, 2016 [142 favorites]


I'm assuming you are in the 9th congressional district Dogheart.

If so I can totally see while Clinton and Kaine are barely present. It's not exactly friendly territory.

If Clinton wins VA and it's quite likely it will be on the strength of the coastal population centers. Appalachia needs to be addressed but Western Virginia and West Virginia are brutal areas for Democrats now.
posted by vuron at 5:35 PM on July 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


So, rather against my will, I find myself in Southwest Virginia again. And guys, it's scary out here. I see handmade Trump signs in lawns when I go to take out the trash. Lots of Confederate flags, NRA stickers on pickup trucks, those stupid 'Don't Tread On Me' tea party license plates. And I can't find a place to volunteer for Hillary that isn't an hour's drive away.

I'm fucking scared, okay? I don't see this part of the state going blue. I'm trying to do what I can-- there's a diversity rally happening tomorrow that's only a half hour drive away, in a mid-size town with middle class aspirations, and I plan to be there. But it doesn't look half as organized as Obama's supporters did in this same region in 2008.


Hopefully it's just that Clinton's campaign has made a different calculus about where to put their resources, which is one of the hardest and most fraught decisions in any campaign.

For instance, I expect to see the Clinton campaign put less resources into white rural areas than Obama did, as white voters become less "gettable" but also less crucial for Dems every four years. Not sure if that describes your area though.

I know that probably doesn't help much right now though!
posted by lunasol at 5:37 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Who are all these horrible people

White people who'v not seen the gains that some have, and are afraid that if yet another group comes to America the pie once more will be cut and their share will be even smaller.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:39 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Who are all these horrible people?

Republicans.

This is the general answer to that question that fits most situations, not just this specific situation.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 5:39 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


The fire marshall article reads like the Onion. I mean, everything reads like the Onion now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 PM on July 29, 2016 [42 favorites]


If so I can totally see while Clinton and Kaine are barely present. It's not exactly friendly territory.

Similarly, it's one of the benefits in living in one of the bluest districts in the country (where I thankfully like my nearly untouchable Congressman). No matter what Trump told the NYT recently, he's going to get absolutely crushed here so neither campaign will justify spending a significant amount of money on television or radio ads here.
posted by dances with hamsters at 5:40 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I had relatives go to Colorado College so yeah it's not all crazy people but Colorado Springs isn't exactly like trying to win people over in Boulder either.

Personally I think Colorado is extremely difficult for Trump to win based upon all the California expats flooding in but it isn't something that he can just give up on either.

But I have a hard time seeing any result other than a Clinton 325 victory right now.
posted by vuron at 5:40 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can't he please just do something sufficiently illegal that he gets disqualified for being in prison?

You don't want Trump getting disqualified anyway. Anybody replacing Trump would get enthusiastic support from all the people who usually vote Republican but were balking at Trump, and he'd also get the vote of anyone who was going to vote Trump just by dint of being the Republican in the race (unless the replacement was a minority of some sort, but come on, it's the Republicans). Believe it or not, at this point I think Trump as the Republican candidate is the best case scenario for the sane people in the country.
posted by IAmUnaware at 5:42 PM on July 29, 2016 [30 favorites]


I had relatives go to Colorado College so yeah it's not all crazy people but Colorado Springs isn't exactly like trying to win people over in Boulder either.

Hi, I live in Colorado Springs and I am not crazy. Disheartened by the rally up the street today, more like. These threads help.
posted by mochapickle at 5:42 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm in the 5th, actually. But I really hope y'all are right. I just wish there was more I could do here.
posted by dogheart at 5:45 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


You don't want Trump getting disqualified anyway.

This entirely depends on whether you think Trump is going to win. If you told me right now I could wave a magic wand and make, I dunno, Mitt Romney win the election in November I'd have to think long and hard about whether I'd do it. I don't want Romney to be President and he'd fuck up the Supreme Court for decades. But he wouldn't destroy everything like Trump might. So I don't know.
posted by Justinian at 5:46 PM on July 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


Donald Trump was running late as usual for his rally in Colorado and so this happened:
El Paso County Commissioner and U.S. Senate candidate Darryl Glenn unexpectedly took the stage Friday afternoon before Trump’s address at UCCS.

“Donald trump is going to lead us to victory as president,” Glenn told a crowd filling the Gallogly Events Center. “But there’s more. Hillary Clinton is not fit to be president… I am absolutely committed to making sure we remove her from her pantsuit and put her in a bright orange jump suit.”

“Mr. Trump will be here in a little bit,” he added before leaving the stage.
Another day, another man, calling for Clinton to be put in prison because she has dared to run for President.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:47 PM on July 29, 2016 [37 favorites]


Another day, another man, calling for Clinton to be put in prison because she has dared to run for President.

And stripped down, to boot.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:48 PM on July 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


Hey. Y'all. New thread (i've still been following last night's and today's responses have been even better than they were last night, which I had not thought possible)!

Watch this.

I want to say "let's not even mention El Cheeto's name from here on out. We got this."
I know we can't. But: WE GOT THIS.

Kill it. Landslide. Get out. Do it.
posted by rp at 5:50 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Heh, I live in Texas.

On the down side we have 38 Electoral Vote that are guaranteed to be in the Trump's column in November despite having a large number of very large cities that are fairly liberal.

On the plus side other than fund raising stops there aren't a whole lot of reasons for Trump to actually come to Texas and even less chances he'll actually spend money here. So as long as I avoid the MSM constant coverage of Trump's daily temper tantrum I'm pretty safe from the worst of the mess.

I totally feel for you liberals that are living in red enclaves in Purple states that Trump desperately needs to come out in mass in November because you are quite likely to have to deal with the walking dumpster fire in your vicinity in the not so distant future.

Ohio I'm especially full of sorrow for you because you'll be ground zero for a ton of Cheetoh dust contaminating your environment.
posted by vuron at 5:52 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I am absolutely committed to making sure we remove her from her pantsuit

Someone come up with a zinger because I'm just drinking Whiskey while dancing the Tango and Foxtrot here.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:55 PM on July 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Going with the he'll crack up theory- running for prez at this level is exhausting, there is a schedule, and your time is not your own. A spoiled turd like Donald will find that...agitating.
posted by vrakatar at 5:57 PM on July 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


You could totally run for prez from prison and then once you win you can pardon yourself, boom

At least one Representative has for reals been elected from his prison cell.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:58 PM on July 29, 2016




The process for formal classified briefings for both Trump and Clinton began today. Time has a good article covering the topic if you are interested. Turns out both Goldwater and Mondale chose not to receive the briefings. The President could interfere but he has chosen to be neutral, passing the responsibility over to James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. This is probably the section of greatest interest:
While Priess said concerns about information leaks are reasonable given the controversies surrounding the current nominees, he thinks it’s unlikely a candidate would make that mistake: “As a general rule, it’s like Vegas.” While legal consequences are “extremely unlikely” in the event a candidate talks, he said there would still be “huge ramifications” politically.

“It makes little strategic sense, and it makes little political sense, to reveal what you hear in these briefings,” Priess said. “I would find it hard to believe—based on precedent and based on logic—that there is a dire national security threat of someone going out and repeating what they were told in a briefing.”
So it sounds like they threaten the candidates with serious consequences. Whether or not Trump cares is another story.

By the way the briefings are for the presidential and vice presidential candidates and "one or two trusted staffers."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:04 PM on July 29, 2016 [17 favorites]


These people who are trying to decide Stein or Johnson, who think how you vote is a moral purity badge, these are the people that you won't go out to eat with anymore after sitting through them trying to order food.
posted by bongo_x at 6:05 PM on July 29, 2016 [29 favorites]


I dunno about you but I only support win cannons, not lose ones.
posted by dis_integration at 6:05 PM on July 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


I am absolutely committed to making sure we remove her from her pantsuit and put her in a bright orange jump suit.

Oh my God. After all of the creepy shit that has happened so far, this is the thing that makes me feel sick.

Burn this rapey bullshit to the ground.
posted by Salieri at 6:05 PM on July 29, 2016 [64 favorites]


Hold up, Twitter, I think you popped it into reverse by accident.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:06 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


So, rather against my will, I find myself in Southwest Virginia again. ... I'm fucking scared, okay?

Virginia hasn't been polled in a few weeks but there have not yet been *any* polls I can find that have had Trump in the lead.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:06 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Holy Moly. I don't usually watch MSNBC, but apparently I'm now addicted to election news, SO.

Anyway, Maddow just opened her show with the story about how Reagan opened his 1980 campaign by going to Philadelphia, MS, home of the Mississippi Burning murders, to speak out in favor of "state's rights"...

And she opened with that because Trump's son went there to campaign. A town with a population of 8,000 that also happens to be a giant bat signal to white supremacists.

Juuuuust in case it still wasn't clear.
posted by schadenfrau at 6:08 PM on July 29, 2016 [129 favorites]


I'm not familiar with lose cannons but then I remember the RNC's pathetic balloon drop. I'm pretty sure lose cannons were involved.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:10 PM on July 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Oh yes, schadenfrau and while there, he made sure to say that confederate flags were all right in his book.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:12 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Burn this rapey bullshit to the ground.


I think we're gonna see the MRAs and red pillers get the same boost that the white supremacists got from Obama's presidency. The SPLC is going to be insanely busy, and all of us are...idek. I guess you just soldier on.

But seriously, fuck all of it.
posted by schadenfrau at 6:13 PM on July 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


This briefings thing would be a great opportunity for Obama to to pull some Tyrion shit and feed Trump some false Intel, see if it leaks to Putin.
posted by condour75 at 6:14 PM on July 29, 2016 [29 favorites]


Trump isn't even trying to be sneaky in courting the White Nationalist vote.

Short of getting an 88 or Celtic Cross Tattoo I'm not sure he could be more clear about the type of voters he's trying to GOTV.
posted by vuron at 6:14 PM on July 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


In defense of progressives accepting a compromise candidate, it might be helpful to point out that that's how Justin Trudeau got elected in Canada. Most of the progressives here would have loved to elect Jack Layton last year, but that just wasn't possible. So far, the guy we settled for is doing ok.
posted by peppermind at 6:15 PM on July 29, 2016 [21 favorites]


Going with the he'll crack up theory
How will we be able to see a difference from his normal conduct?

“It makes little strategic sense, and it makes little political sense, to reveal what you hear in these briefings,”
With the success he's had doing things that make NO political sense, why should that be a matter now? My fear is that he will simply LIE about being informed of things that confirm his warped worldview, the officials say that it's NOT what they told him, he says "PROVE IT" and they can't without committing a security breach themselves. But then, that would be a smarter move than anything he's done so far.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:15 PM on July 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


vuron, and yet the talking heads still won't call it. What will it take? Honest question.
posted by schadenfrau at 6:16 PM on July 29, 2016


Clinton should not be given national security briefings in that she is a lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts.

Oh hell. I was so focused on "lose cannon" that I totally missed insticts. He really should have chosen Tim Kaine-- that man can spell!

I feel drunk but I swear I haven't had a drop of bourbon yet.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:16 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


To me, the real danger with the briefings is not Trump being told some super sensitive information that he blurts out publicly or anything, but rather that he starts blabbing about how he met with the CIA and they told him all this crazy stuff he's not allowed to talk about and it's all 100 times worse than you can possibly know he can't believe Obama and Hillary are keeping it a secret. And then we get months of "what are they hiding?" over nothing.
posted by zachlipton at 6:16 PM on July 29, 2016 [36 favorites]


Lots of Area 51 and Majestic 12 and Jade Helm security briefings. It would be hilarious to have Trump start talking all sorts of insane NWO conspiracy theories. At least it would distract him from his race baiting strategy for a few days.
posted by vuron at 6:16 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hey, dogheart, the Clinton campaign is set up so you can phone bank to anywhere from anywhere if you've got your cell phone.

I don't even answer the phone sometimes when it's people I know or when I'm at work, but I phone banked for Obama. At least once or twice.
posted by crush-onastick at 6:18 PM on July 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


I think we're gonna see the MRAs and red pillers get the same boost that the white supremacists got from Obama's presidency.
If Hillary's election does for Women what Obama's did for Blacks...
...it may be time to start printing "Female Lives Matter" signs.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:19 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Imagine if the Left said, you know what, we've got your back, we're definitely voting Democrat. The Democrats would have the freedom to pick more left-wing candidates because they could be sure that they would get that solid block of votes.

This is pretty much exactly the opposite of how I feel - and I'm emphasizing on the word "feel" because if you can give me a real argument that I'm wrong you have an opportunity to change my position- about the situation. It seems to me that the mainline Democrats do take it for granted that 90% of the "left Left" will vote for them in the end, because the Republicans are so far right - and that's why I consider it worthwhile for those of us in counties where it's not a tight race to demonstrate what sort of candidate actually gets us excited.
posted by atoxyl at 6:21 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Does voting third party or abstaining from voting in order to punish the center-left party ever actually work? You hear a lot of people talking about it as a strategy but I've never seen any evidence that the Dems or any other liberal party cares.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:23 PM on July 29, 2016 [22 favorites]


How will we be able to see a difference from his normal conduct?

He'll drop f-bombs, throw shit, maybe literally, not show up for events, freak out at the debates and actually try to strangle Hillary, call for martial law, call for armed revolt if he loses (which he can also blame on Pence), run out of money, and I think he's already alienating donors.
posted by vrakatar at 6:24 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm looking for rebuttals to "voting your conscience" and protest-voting and opting out of the election - anything anyone can provide would be super helpful

Thinking about what your vote means, or what it says about who you are, or what it expresses about you isn't a crazy thing to do because even in close states the probability that your state's electors will be decided by your vote is near zero.

So.

What does voting for Stein say about you? What values do you show the world when you vote for Stein? --YES I KNOW THESE ARGUMENTS ARE VERY STRONGLY WORDED AND REALLY KINDA UNFAIR BUT I AM NOT ARGUING WITH YOU --

Stein supports the anti-vaxxers. So you're saying that your values are thousands to millions of children dying from easily preventable diseases?

Stein supports the homeopathy industry, which has been repeatedly found to be outright lying about its ingredients. So I guess your values are lying to people in support of quack therapies, and not even selling them the quack remedies they think they're buying?

Stein sided with the racist UKIP and supported Brexit. So you're saying her explicit support for racist parties is a better match for your values than Clinton?

Oh, you're worried about integrity and honesty? After applauding the racist UKIP's win in Britain, she deleted her text to pretend she hadn't said that. I guess that's the honesty and integrity you want to show too?

And so on. I'm too lazy to do this myself but she's enough of a doofus that she will have said some variety of dumb things and supported some variety of awful causes. Point them out. The payoff is that they will probably admit that Stein holds or has stated any number of positions they don't agree with... at which point you can point out that if they're going to cast an impure vote that they only kinda partly support, maybe they should cast it in a way that might have some minimal effect.

Intentional nonvoters are easier. So your values say that Trump isn't worth fighting? You want to say that here was this existential threat to American democracy and, when you looked at him and at your values you concluded "Meh. Whatever." Here is this weapons grade asshole, and what your non-vote says is that you're okay with him.

This is even easier for Democrats or left-leaning people thinking about Johnson. The Libertarians support the repeal of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, minimum wage laws, Medicare, and Social Security. Are those your values, bud?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:24 PM on July 29, 2016 [82 favorites]


As I mentioned in one of the DNC threads, Trump's unwillingness to sleep in a bed he doesn't own (either at one of his homes or on his plane) may limit the states he visits, and his lack of surrogates beyond Pence and a few others may take a physical and mental toll quickly, given how the entire top tier of the Dems will be on the campaign trail sharing the load for the Clinton/Kaine ticket. Even the fanciest private plane has to recirculate germy air.

(Also, if the perambulating winter squash is going to complain about every venue in every small town, that's not going to come across so well in local media.)

I hope someone can knock together an online map of campaign stops and states visited for all the candidates and their surrogates. If not, I may have to put one together myself.
posted by holgate at 6:26 PM on July 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


The problem is that Hillary has adopted quite a bit of Bernie's platform, which is something to be celebrated. What are a lot of them doing? Spitting in her face. So good luck getting the party to forget this in the future if Hillary loses. If the far left are going to vote Green no matter what, then the Democrats will say fuck it and court the center.
posted by gatorae at 6:26 PM on July 29, 2016 [31 favorites]


From the previous thread:

In his businesses and presidential campaign, Trump requires nearly everyone to sign legally binding nondisclosure agreements prohibiting them from releasing any confidential or disparaging information about the real estate mogul, his family or his companies. Those subject to confidentiality agreements include senior advisers like Lewandowski, campaign volunteers and even a maker of his famous “Make America Great Again” hats.

The practice is also something the presumptive Republican nominee says he would consider requiring in the White House, raising concerns about government transparency and freedom of information laws.

Obama's Executive Order 13526 Section 1.7 (a) (1) and (2) bans classification of documents simply to "conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error" or "prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency"; as do all of the Classified National Security Information orders of the preceding presidents that WikiSource has, going back at least to Nixon. But maybe we would see that part quietly disappear from a President Trump's version of the order.
posted by XMLicious at 6:27 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


>Hillary Clinton should not be given national security briefings in that she is a lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts.

That's also not how you use "in that". "Because" would have worked fine, but he probably thought "in that" sounded smarter. I am reminded of Homer Simpson.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 6:28 PM on July 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Every time I see BoBs in these threads I think of Outkast.
posted by dw at 6:29 PM on July 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


The problem is that Hillary has adopted quite a bit of Bernie's platform, which is something to be celebrated. What are a lot of them doing? Spitting in her face. So good luck getting the party to forget this in the future if Hillary loses. If the far left are going to vote Green no matter what, then the Democrats will say fuck it and court the center.

I keep saying that if you're already not voting for somebody, you can't threaten them with the withholding of your vote.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:30 PM on July 29, 2016 [8 favorites]




Hillary Clinton should not be given national security briefings in that she is a lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts.

No way Trump wrote that, it doesn't say "Crooked."
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:30 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Another thread?! Okey dokey...
posted by homunculus at 6:30 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]




Make Threads Long Again!
posted by Yowser at 6:32 PM on July 29, 2016 [23 favorites]


This is even easier for Democrats or left-leaning people thinking about Johnson. The Libertarians support the repeal of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, minimum wage laws, Medicare, and Social Security. Are those your values, bud?

Yep. This is the problem with representative democracy. We're down to the two. Which one represents you better?
posted by rp at 6:32 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


My general thoughts on the next 100 days of this election...

1. As mentioned above, Trump is not ready for the spotlight and grind of the general election. By not really taking the primaries seriously he did not prepare himself for what's to come. Everyone has been looking for the one big thing that will do him in (surely this...), but I think it's going to be more of a death by 1000 cuts. He will exhaust himself and slowly melt down in a big way before November.

2. We will see the limits of his base. They may be angry and energized, but we've seen this before. Palin's angry mobs made for good news footage, but her negatives ended up being the real story in the end. The Tea Party was angry and energized and did lots of damage in local races (thanks in part to gerrymandering, etc.) but Obama still managed to win re-election.

3. For every vote clinton loses on the left, Trump loses 2 from the GOP establishment. That's going to hurt more. For all of Bernie's success in the primary, we see how not having the full support of your party's establishment can hurt a campaign. From fundraising to gotv to messaging, the existing infrastructure of the party is more important in the general than in the primary. One thing I learned watching Obama in '08 is that winning the news cycle every week doesn't win elections. You need the machine. Also, I'd bet a crisp dollar bill that Trump doesn't fully understand how the electoral college works, and will blow off at least one swing state that he could have won.

4. The "first woman president" narrative will gain momentum as we get closer to November. If Hillary Clinton can avoid scoring any own-goals, this will become a bigger story than the GOP implosion. A lot of it will be in the form of "Is America ready for a woman President?" concern trolling, but it shifts the narrative nonetheless)

5. This is my longshot prediction. A high profile Republican will endorse Clinton at the last minute. My money's on Laura Bush.

This is all oversimplified, but it's where my optimism for the outcome of this election is coming from.
posted by billyfleetwood at 6:33 PM on July 29, 2016 [58 favorites]


Ya know, maybe the GOP knew Hillary pretty much had this one, and decided to throw this election and purge the fringe at the same time.

Maybe? Yeah?
posted by Mooski at 6:35 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Bush's crazification factor was 27%. I wonder what Trump's will turn out to be.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:37 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I like your optimism.
posted by rp at 6:37 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Talk about your lose cannons....

He has gone off message again. Trump open to local fracking bans
DENVER - Donald Trump departed from the traditional Republican stance on fracking Friday when he told 9NEWS he supports local control.

“Well I’m in favor of fracking, but I think that voters should have a big say in it,” Trump said. “I mean there are some areas maybe that don’t want to have fracking."

"if a municipality or state wants to ban fracking, I can understand that."
I give it...two days before he reverses himself. "I can understand that a municipality might not want to have fracking but I believe we need to leave that up to the state. The state should totally decide."<---my made up quote, not to be confused with the real Trump quote to come.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:38 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is pretty much exactly the opposite of how I feel - and I'm emphasizing on the word "feel" because if you can give me a real argument that I'm wrong you have an opportunity to change my position- about the situation. It seems to me that the mainline Democrats do take it for granted that 90% of the "left Left" will vote for them in the end

My argument would be: that's not what we saw at the convention. Presidents and vice presidents came out strongly in favor of progressive values, politicians, and movements. Progressive activists had a huge role on stage. The party platform is the most progressive ever. The nominee herself made a series of specific promises to support progressive causes that she can be held accountable for.

The party just bet hard on the left. And it bet on moderate non-racist Republicans too, not so much in its policies but certainly leaving the tent door wide open in its themes. This isn't an election where anyone is being taken for granted. The question is, which of those bets is going to pay off?

I'm hoping they all do. But I feel most optimistic about the future of the Democratic Party if its bets pay off on the left.
posted by john hadron collider at 6:41 PM on July 29, 2016 [58 favorites]


Calling it now for Hillary, with the decision being final by midnight of election night.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:43 PM on July 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


This is pretty much exactly the opposite of how I feel - and I'm emphasizing on the word "feel" because if you can give me a real argument that I'm wrong you have an opportunity to change my position- about the situation. It seems to me that the mainline Democrats do take it for granted that 90% of the "left Left" will vote for them in the end, because the Republicans are so far right - and that's why I consider it worthwhile for those of us in counties where it's not a tight race to demonstrate what sort of candidate actually gets us excited

When do you think the country, as a whole, was more liberal: 1960 or 1964? 1968 or 1976? 1980 or 1988? 1992 or 2000? 2004 or 2016? Politics are a ratchet. Victories get more people on your side. The far left will always be taken for granted. By definition. But if the far left helps to get more candidates elected, those politicians will move the country left - the center becomes more liberal and, consequently, the far left grows and moves even further left. Politics is a tug of war. If you're not winning, you're losing.

Look at Hillary Clinton. In 2008, she could have convinced her supporters that they were robbed. Maybe enough of them would have believed her and Obama could have lost. And they would have run around shouting about how we shouldn't blame them, it was our fault for picking Obama. Do you think Democrats would have rewarded her with the nomination this time around? It would have been political suicide. Instead, she threw her support wholeheartedly behind the candidate, immediately gained all of Obama's supporters' respect, as well as gaining the future support of the entire Democratic apparatus.

Bernie sees that, too. Do you think Democrats are sitting around right now with deep respect for Bernie supporters? What happened at the convention was, frankly, embarrassing. Nobody looked at the Busters as people you'd want to work with. They didn't gain anybody's support. They made people angry and they pissed off the establishment. That was their goal. But it's not going to get them anywhere politically. Do you think Nader gained influence after 2000?
posted by one_bean at 6:44 PM on July 29, 2016 [56 favorites]


the trump endorsement train keeps rolling along! recent highlights:
Robert Mugabe
Kim Jong-Un
Charles Manson
David Duke
Anyone want to start a pool for his next endorsement?
posted by murphy slaw at 6:50 PM on July 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


Fundamentally I think there are a bunch of very angry, very worried but also generally well meaning people on the left. Unfortunately I think that there isn't a real solid appreciation of the dynamics of how modern political parties actually work.

Like I said in a previous thread (like a million threads ago it feels like) modern politics relies on two currencies: money power and people power.

Money is pretty easy to understand, money buys infrastructure and staff and ads and all the stuff modern campaigns need. The age of being able to campaign by printing your own broadsheet have passed us by which is why candidates like Vermin Supreme struggle to get traction despite having a dynamite set of policies.

People power is how many people you can reliably bring to the polls. One time influxes of voters are important but fundamentally if you want to get a lot of time and influence you need to be able to deliver voters time after time.

All too often progressives struggle to form cohesive and consistent coalitions. We turn out for national elections every 4 years and then somehow disappear during midterms and don't even get me started on state and local elections. Until progressives can reliably deliver votes every election I feel like we will continue to be marginalized because we can't be relied on when the going gets tough.

Combined with the proliferation of absolutist stances, and the tendency for a lot of progressives to authoritatively say "this is the number one priority", the tendency for some progressives to be really bad on intersectionality and prone towards denying their own privilege and I can totally understand why politicians tend to not rely on us.

Primaries are when you express your preferences but if you want long term influence you suck it up and vote in the general election instead of threatening to vote third party or abstain. I think that's what irritated a ton of people about the BoBs. It wasn't because we disagreed with the policies that many of the BoBs want but that they were willing to engage in political hostage taking because their demands weren't being respected.
posted by vuron at 6:52 PM on July 29, 2016 [26 favorites]


OFFS. Trump: Clinton should have congratulated me for making history
“I was curious to see whether she’d do a class act and not mention my name,” the Republican nominee said at a rally with supporters in Colorado. “Or mention it with respect, like, say, ‘I’d like to congratulate my Republican opponent for having done something that nobody has ever done in the history of politics in this nation.’”“See, I thought she might do something like that. I thought she'd give me a big fat beautiful congratulations. If she did that, would that have been cool? Would that have been great?,” Trump said.
See guys, it is Trump who is the one making history here. I don't know what we were thinking. Ladies can be President any day of the week but Trump, he has done something that nobody has ever done in political history. Although I must admit to be a little baffled as to what that something might be. Never mind. He is the special one. She is just average. Got that?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:53 PM on July 29, 2016 [61 favorites]


Sorry if this was already in the other thread, but I can't get it to load anymore to see. It seems pretty clear now that yes, indeed, the "very little guy" at the DNC that Trump was particularly mad at was Michael Bloomberg:

"I was going to hit one guy in particular, a very little guy," Trump said to laughs at a campaign rally in Davenport, Iowa. "I was going to hit this guy so hard his head would spin, he wouldn't know what the hell happened."

That was far too vague, so he followed up with a tweet:
"Little" Michael Bloomberg, who never had the guts to run for president, knows nothing about me. His last term as Mayor was a disaster!
posted by gatorae at 6:55 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Every time I see BoBs in these threads I think of Outkast .

I thought I was the only one!
posted by Waiting for Pierce Inverarity at 6:58 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well as far as I know he's the first orange person to be the nominee of a major Party.

I assume of course but it's entirely possible that Taft rocked the spray on tan as well.
posted by vuron at 6:58 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


As I mentioned in one of the DNC threads, Trump's unwillingness to sleep in a bed he doesn't own (either at one of his homes or on his plane) may limit the states he visits

Is he freaked out about being in a hotel bed with bedbugs or whatever? Seen one too many news reports about hotels not really being clean?

More importantly: does anyone doubt that his household staff regularly spits in his coffee & takes every other small bit of revenge they possibly can on this dude?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:59 PM on July 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Why did he select 'Little' instead of the more on-the-nose 'Short'?

I mean, we all know we're talking about dicks.
posted by box at 7:00 PM on July 29, 2016


Wasn't Bloomberg the stop-and-frisk & I'll-spoil-as-a-3rd-party-candidate-if-that-socialist-wins guy?

I see him and Trump fighting and it's like, "Yes, two dying stars tearing each other apart in a fantastic show of light and heat for all the galaxy to enjoy!"
posted by Slackermagee at 7:03 PM on July 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


many of the BoBs want but that they were willing to engage in political hostage taking because their demands weren't being respected.

Except a tremendous number of their demands were met! They even got to have a little witchberning with DWS getting sent home and abandoned to fight off her primary challenger alone. In the case of the debt-free college plan, Clinton and Sanders even managed to improve on what they were asking for. And after all of that, they still wore tape over their mouths and heckled through it. They still wore those stupid fucking yellow shirts and tried to interrupt a moment 240 years in the making. I feel like all their demands were a smokescreen for what they really wanted: Hillary to drop out and let Bernie have the nomination, because his smaller coalition of voters just wants it more. Bernie became such a cult figure to this last sliver of deadenders that they won't even listen to the actual man anymore.

I'm so annoyed with the Buster antics that I shaved my damn beard off this morning. I kept thinking of all those shots of sanctimonious white boys with their fists in their air and wanted to look a little bit less like them and their fucking big important deep ethical thoughts. Gotta wait a paycheck before ordering another Hillary shirt and even then, I can't wear it daily.
posted by EatTheWeak at 7:04 PM on July 29, 2016 [83 favorites]


>I don't see this part of the state going blue

http://files.umwblogs.org/blogs.dir/3752/files/2012/11/2012-results-Cartogram.png

^ no worries, mate
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 7:05 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I assume of course but it's entirely possible that Taft rocked the spray on tan as well.

Sorry to rain on your parade, vuron. but if Taft wanted to be orange he would have had to powder it on or possibly paint it on. I'm pretty sure spray cans had not been invented yet although I am too lazy to look it up. Also I am off to bed to watch West Wing with a glass of Bourbon.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:05 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump's unwillingness to sleep in a bed he doesn't own (either at one of his homes or on his plane)

Wait. What??
posted by odinsdream at 7:06 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Out of curiosity, other than debunking obvious slurs over the internet, is there anything I'm legally allowed to do as a British National to help the Clinton campaign.
posted by Francis at 7:07 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


If Hillary has some time to go on the offense I would totally suggest in going down to Hotlanta and getting a bunch of Hip-Hop musicians to show up in force.

Yeah it would probably be seen as pandering but can you imagine Outkast and Janelle Monae and India Arie and all the other talented people from Atlanta.

It would be awesome and it would completely humiliate the Donald's parade of z-list star power.
posted by vuron at 7:08 PM on July 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


Does voting third party or abstaining from voting in order to punish the center-left party ever actually work? You hear a lot of people talking about it as a strategy but I've never seen any evidence that the Dems or any other liberal party cares.

I mean, people voted for Nader in 2000, so after careful consideration in 2004, the Democrats obviously shifted leftward to bring those voters back, right? Oh wait, John Kerry was nominated in a relative landslide on a fairly centrist platform. Kerry is certainly toward the left (DW-NOMINATE of -0.373, a nudge to the right of Hillary Clinton), but his campaign was hardly pandering to former Nader voters. So that's not a good indication that progressive voters abandoning the Democratic Party magically moves it leftward.

Some of the main issues in that election were Iraq and how much we were going to cut taxes, while some of the main issues in this election are how many people we're going to deport and how many Americans we're going to send to college.
posted by zachlipton at 7:10 PM on July 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


Out of curiosity, other than debunking obvious slurs over the internet, is there anything I'm legally allowed to do as a British National to help the Clinton campaign.
You can come to the US and volunteer, but that seems like a pretty big commitment!

(We had several non-US-citizens volunteer on my team in 2012. I was like "is that legal?", but it turns out that it totally is. You have to be a citizen or permanent resident to donate to a campaign, but it's fine for anyone to volunteer.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:12 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Does voting third party or abstaining from voting in order to punish the center-left party ever actually work?

It clearly doesn't work but that doesn't stop people from trying it over and over. You'd think people would be able to learn from other's mistakes.
posted by Justinian at 7:13 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


You have to be a citizen or permanent resident to donate to a campaign...

Unless you're a MP on one of the Trump campaign's fundraising lists.
posted by nathan_teske at 7:16 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I choose to go with the Antonio Saboto Jr method of engaging your "facts" SLoG. You say that spray on tans weren't around in the 1900s but I choose to disbelieve that. You can probably tell me all sorts of things about Taft like telling me that he didn't go on to star in Cocoon and a whole series of commercials about Quaker Oats but in my heart I know that he did and your so called "facts" aren't going to convince me otherwise. Because I and the rest of the Real Americans feel like your facts are just liberal propaganda meant to mislead to American public about how awesome Taft really was. I mean he wouldn't have been the hand picked successor of Teddy Roosevelt if he wasn't awesome.
posted by vuron at 7:19 PM on July 29, 2016 [27 favorites]


Voter restrictions overturned, rulings PDFs.
Wisconsin - Peterson ruling: One Wisconsin Inc et al v. Thomsen et al (7-29-16, 119 pgs)
Beginning with the in-person absentee provisions, there is evidence that the state legislature passed these laws, at least in part, to specifically address what it perceived to be a problem with larger municipalities, like Milwaukee. Legislators were concerned that these municipalities offered residents more opportunities to vote than smaller municipalities offered. For example, during a floor session in the state senate, proponents of limiting the window for in-person absentee voting specifically referred to nipping Milwaukee and Madison’s practices “before too many other cities get on board.” PX022, at 6. Even if the state was not directly responsible for creating the socioeconomic disparities that exist in Milwaukee and other larger cities, the in-person absentee provisions impose burdens because of those disparities. For these reasons, the court concludes that evidence of discrimination in Milwaukee is relevant to the causation element of plaintiffs’ Voting Rights Act claims.
Wisconsin - Adelman ruling: Ruthelle Frank et al v. Walker (7-19-16, 44 pgs)
I must create a safety net to prevent those who cannot obtain ID with reasonable effort from losing the right to vote. The defendants have not proposed their own solution to this problem, and thus the only potential remedy is the plaintiffs’ affidavit procedure. Even if that approach is not ideal, it is better than leaving the plaintiffs with no relief at all.
North Carolina - 4th Circuit ruling: NC State Conference of NAACP & Does, et al, v McRory et al (7-29-16, 83 pgs)
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 7:20 PM on July 29, 2016 [34 favorites]


Lighter note if required: I've been seeing an old comedy from 1964 resurfacing, about the first First Man (Fred MacMurray), called Kisses For My President. It looks pretty terrible but the first few moments are very handsome in an early 60s way and I hope to catch it on TCM, maybe on Inauguration Day.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:21 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump's unwillingness to sleep in a bed he doesn't own (either at one of his homes or on his plane)

Wait. What??


Trump flies home every night to NYC or to Mar-a-lago. I dunno what he did when he was out in CA because it would be insane to fly cross country to sleep every night but maybe he has some property on the west coast.

If he's president i really doubt he'll spend much time in the white house.
posted by dis_integration at 7:22 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Khizr and Ghazala Khan are on Lawrence O'Donnell's show right now. Mr. Khan said that last night's speech was only half the speech he'd written and he just finished it on the show, calling out Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan for not standing up for principle and repudiating Donald Trump. He believes that if Trump is elected it will lead to a constitutional crisis.
posted by homunculus at 7:23 PM on July 29, 2016 [43 favorites]


Politico: How the father of slain Muslim soldier shamed Donald Trump, upstaged Hillary Clinton—and did it without notes.
Khan, a 66-year-old immigration lawyer from Charlottesville, told the story of his son’s death in combat in Iraq, but he turned that elegy into a viral rebuke of Donald Trump: “You have sacrificed nothing!”

And Khan delivered his broadside without using the teleprompter. There was nothing to put on it, because he had written nothing down.
posted by Existential Dread at 7:23 PM on July 29, 2016 [41 favorites]


(We had several non-US-citizens volunteer on my team in 2012. I was like "is that legal?)

Were they immigrants unafraid to step in?
posted by snickerdoodle at 7:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


Romney got egg on his face for being snide about a local bakery's cookies, but Trump can refuse the finest accommodation at any campaign stop, and the people who love him never stop loving. Such is charisma.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


For example, during a floor session in the state senate, proponents of limiting the window for in-person absentee voting specifically referred to nipping Milwaukee and Madison’s practices “before too many other cities get on board.” PX022, at 6.

Representatives literally stood up on the floor of the Wisconsin State Senate and explained that they had to make it more difficult to vote because some cities had already done it and they needed to put a stop to it before anybody else thought it was a good idea. That actually happened here in this decade.
posted by zachlipton at 7:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


Were they immigrants unafraid to step in?

I bet they got the job done.
posted by zachlipton at 7:26 PM on July 29, 2016 [17 favorites]


Is he freaked out about being in a hotel bed with bedbugs or whatever? Seen one too many news reports about hotels not really being clean?

I've no idea: it's just on record that he's basically commuted between campaign stops and his various homes during the campaign. He was in Florida on Wednesday and I bet once his Denver rally's over he'll fly to to Los Angeles and stay in his Beverly Hills mansion. (His planes are not publicly trackable right now, which is understandable for security reasons.)

Pence is out on his own, covering bits of the country that aren't an easy flight away from a Trump home. But he seems to be doing stops that would allow him to stay overnight in Trump hotels, which is a nice way to bill yourself for campaign expenses.
posted by holgate at 7:27 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


And Khan delivered his broadside without using the teleprompter. There was nothing to put on it, because he had written nothing down.

24 hours later that is still the most memorable and powerful part of the DNC for me. His humanity shone like a beacon and I will never forget his speech.
posted by vac2003 at 7:28 PM on July 29, 2016 [45 favorites]


You know I'm pretty sure that when your Muslim son dies protecting the lives of his fellow soldiers and then a politician comes forth and starts slamming all Muslims once the shock of this egregious offense wears off I'm pretty sure you don't need a teleprompter to remember what you want to say.

On the other hand I'm pretty sure I would say something much harsher than Biden's "Malarkey!" but fortunately Khizr Khan has much more grace than I have.
posted by vuron at 7:30 PM on July 29, 2016 [25 favorites]


I suppose it's like a variation on the Travelling Salesman Problem: come up with a campaign schedule that allows Trump to visit battleground states and still fly home for bedtime.

(I hope an environmental group can crunch the personal carbon footprints of each set of candidates.)
posted by holgate at 7:33 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I haven't finished the last DNC thread, and I haven't read the comments here, but I need to say, I'm With Her. I said it out loud on Facebook tonight. My favorite reply was from my conservative Catholic friend who said I won't vote for her, but I hope she wins. She's voting for Johnson, as I hope my parents do, because a vote for Johnson is a vote against Trump. But I'm in, and I feel good about it. The DNC reeled me in, hook, line, and sinker.
posted by Ruki at 7:38 PM on July 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


It seems to me that the mainline Democrats do take it for granted that 90% of the "left Left" will vote for them in the end...

Given that I don't think this has happened once in the past 36 years, why would they take it for granted?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 7:41 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I cannot for the life of me figure out how to reply to a previous MeFi comment, but to dogheart in SW VA, I'd like to hope that those of us in Loudoun, Fairfax, and Arlington counties have your back in this election.
posted by xiix at 7:46 PM on July 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


The problem is that Hillary has adopted quite a bit of Bernie's platform, which is something to be celebrated. What are a lot of them doing? Spitting in her face.

The claims of wanting real change and wanting to be heard are ringing false. Martyrdom is pretty seductive.

I keep saying that if you're already not voting for somebody, you can't threaten them with the withholding of your vote.

Like the customer stories where they say "I'm not shopping here ever again" and the manager says "you've never shopped here before".
posted by bongo_x at 7:47 PM on July 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


> "Justin Bieber turned down an offer of £3.8million to perform a concert funded by Donald Trump’s ­Republican Party. "

Why is Trump attempting to give all this money and a job to a foreign worker?
posted by Mitheral at 7:48 PM on July 29, 2016 [20 favorites]


Much of Trump's music wasn't American. Why stop now?
posted by Yowser at 7:52 PM on July 29, 2016


trump thinks he's being hip and with-it in the eyes of the young by trying to get bieber to play for him

do we really trust a man with such poor judgment to deal with people like putin?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:53 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


what freaks me out is that as an id-driven anti-establishment campaign, trump can cast any gaffe as "unfiltered authenticity" and any show of competence by Clinton as "head in the clouds elitism" and disaffected voters will fall for it
posted by murphy slaw at 7:56 PM on July 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


prediction - if trump is elected, his OWN party will end up impeaching and convicting him
posted by pyramid termite at 7:57 PM on July 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


Like the customer stories where they say "I'm not shopping here ever again" and the manager says "you've never shopped here before".
"We brought new voters to the party"
"Who we didn't need to win the last two Presidential elections. So?"
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:58 PM on July 29, 2016


prediction - if trump is elected, his OWN party will end up impeaching and convicting him

I hope he's thinking about this.
posted by bongo_x at 8:01 PM on July 29, 2016


The claims of wanting real change and wanting to be heard are ringing false. Martyrdom is pretty seductive.

I'm canvassing with the Clinton campaign tomorrow, but I'll believe in real change when the party actually takes actions to cut its anointed 2020 candidate off from the firehose of money during the primary that all the other Democratic candidates protested against, not just Bernie. I am not holding my breath because of carefully-worded aspirational statements that we're all expected to take as commitment to campaign finance reform.
posted by XMLicious at 8:03 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


prediction - if trump is elected, his OWN party will end up impeaching and convicting him

Conviction requires a two-thirds majority in the senate. So unless he does something really illegal, I think most democratic senators would be like "he's your standard bearer, you deal with it."
posted by peeedro at 8:04 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


if trump is impeached and convicted, we get president pence, which might actually be worse
posted by murphy slaw at 8:04 PM on July 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


I hope he's thinking about this.

Why do you think he chose Pence?
posted by Talez at 8:05 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


murphy slaw, I'm concerned that may actually be the long game in the most secret lairs of Republicans, although that is probably too cinematic to be true.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:07 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


5. This is my longshot prediction. A high profile Republican will endorse Clinton at the last minute. My money's on Laura Bush.

I've got ten bucks on Romney.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:07 PM on July 29, 2016 [18 favorites]


I mean I want him staying up nights and worrying about it. That just gives me pleasure.
posted by bongo_x at 8:08 PM on July 29, 2016


Someone upthread said Khizr Khan reminded them of their own immigrant dad, and I wanted to echo that sentiment. Different countries, different careers, different coasts, but I could see my dad stepping up to give that speech, dignified and angry and serious and earnest and believing in this (his) country, and loving and quietly bursting with pride for his kids, that I watched last night. They're probably about the same age and probably immigrated around the same time, coming to the US for higher degrees and staying to raise their families. All y'all say Kaine is platonic America's Dad, and I can see that in the cousins of my generation, born and raised in the US and goofing around with my nieces and nephews. But Khan represents mine, and I'm glad he spoke and I got to hear him.
posted by cdefgfeadgagfe at 8:10 PM on July 29, 2016 [70 favorites]


I think there might be a line of Republicans are ready to endorse Clinton, but are waiting to see how it goes. If it looks like Trump's going to lose anyway they're not going to put themselves out there.

Just my theory. But this "betting" thing intrigues me.
posted by bongo_x at 8:11 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't think he stays up nights worrying about anything, really. If he did, he'd be a different man. Some interviewer asked him what he thought about when he was alone, and the question baffled him. Sorry not to have the quote; it was in the 80s, I think.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:16 PM on July 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Loudoun, Fairfax, and Arlington counties have your back in this election.

Probably even more than you might think. I mean, yes, they skew heavily Democratic to begin with, but the NoVa Republicans I know tend to be old-fashioned establishment types. Trump's support among that particular part of his ostensible base is very weak.
posted by jackbishop at 8:18 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


@realDonaldTrump
Hillary Clinton should not be given national security briefings in that she is a lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts.
posted by gatorae at 8:03 PM on July 29 [9 favorites +] [!]


Here's my new fun internal game whenever I see or hear Trump's tweets or speech: I say or just think real loud "HOLY CRAP! a talking/tweeting [Orange Food item]!"* In this case it would be "HOLY CRAP! a tweeting cheeto!"

Because orange is diverse foodgroup you can stick with snack items, such as cheeto's, or cheez-its, and get pretty far, but I do enjoy the canteloupe, kumquat and other evocative imagery that fruits and veg can provide. The game is to think of as many orange food items as possible before the discussion has exhausted itself with disgust.


*This is based off of the unfunny punchline "HOLY CRAP A TALKING MUFFIN." A joke I never really got.
posted by Cold Lurkey at 8:19 PM on July 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


yeah trump's inner life is either a hallucinatory phantasmagoria or totally nonexistent
posted by murphy slaw at 8:20 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


This is all oversimplified, but it's where my optimism for the outcome of this election is coming from.

I find myself fluctuating between optimism, and sheer, OMG what if the unthinkable happens horror.

Just now, in fact, I was visited by ghosts of 2004. I was an idealistic teen, and I was all in on the Kerry campaign* (16 years old, not even old enough to vote). I phone banked, I canvassed, I registered voters. Even though I was a democratic in a sea of hard core conservatives, I still thought, surely the rest of the country must see through all this bullshit. Surely we couldn't be so stupid as to re-elect this guy. I fantasized about waking up the day after the election, donning all my John Kerry gear, hopping in my car plastered with Kerry bumper stickers, and strutting into school and shoving it in everyone's face.

And then he lost. HE LOST. I was devastated, seriously. It's taken me 12 years to really bounce back and fully allow myself to get somewhat invested in another campaign. (I was on board the Obama train, but I kept my distance, lest my fragile heart be broken again.)

So sometimes I get a flashback to that dark time, and my blood runs cold.

But I will say that the Democratic party has come a long way. I really felt like they did a terrible job of backing John Kerry. The swift boating, the "flip flop" crap... we just seemed so weak and ineffectual. (The media as a whole was also complicit in enabling this horribleness, of course.)

Seeing what they pulled off with this convention just makes me so unbelievably happy and proud. It could have been a bland, boring coronation ceremony, but instead, it was riveting and inspiring. The diversity, the speakers, the optics, the substance. We've come along way from the dark days of the early aughts.

I won't feel safe until after the election (assuming Hillary wins), but I definitely feel better than I did even a couple weeks ago.

*I actually started as a Dean supporter, but I was willing to get behind any democrat/candidate who's last name wasn't "Bush."
posted by litera scripta manet at 8:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [27 favorites]


I hope she's checking the insticts on her lose cannon. I don't know what that is but it sounds bad.
posted by bongo_x at 8:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


I assume Trump's inner life is just a loop of him banging on a pot and chanting "I am so great! I am so great! Everybody loves me, I am so great!" Bart Simpson style.
posted by yasaman at 8:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [26 favorites]


Loudoun, Fairfax, and Arlington counties have your back in this election.


Which is the core of the problem. The SW VA people vote and never win because they're outnumbered. So when a Trump comes along, they feel good.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Stein supports the anti-vaxxers. So you're saying that your values are thousands to millions of children dying from easily preventable diseases?

Not a particularly honest claim!
posted by atoxyl at 8:26 PM on July 29, 2016


Huh I hadn't considered that Trump might actually be just a Chinese room but now that you say it...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:27 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


Even if he gets utterly crushed, it doesn't matter: 2020 is likely going to be a fucking hell-nightmare of an election. Given the level of support Trump has touting a basically-fascist platform, even with every single fuckup he's committed, all it's gonna take is someone just as authoritarian but slightly-less-dim (like just BARELY more capable!) to swoop in and re-energize the same field of people. Assuming Clinton wins: four years from now, we're gonna look back at 2016 with longing for such a frazzled, easily-unbalanced little shit.

Tom Cotton. He has been watching and learning. He is very smart, plays a pretty good aw-shucks Gomer, former military, and absolutely giddy about theocratic fascism.

I'm going to do the thing I never do and say that he will absolutely be the guy you're talking about, because whenever I make a confident IT WILL BE THUS political prediction, I'm usually wrong, and I need to be wrong now.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:29 PM on July 29, 2016 [21 favorites]


Trump is a germophobe. Which perhaps explains a great deal about how he divides the world into categories of "beautiful" and "disgusting."
posted by EarBucket at 8:29 PM on July 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


Donald Trump’s 4-Hour Sleep Habit Could Explain His Personality

So he is apparently kept up all night... not thinking.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:33 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mike Pence came out against name-calling today, in a massive rebuke of Trump's entire campaign strategy to this point. Oh wait, no, Pence was actually scolding Obama for calling Trump a "demagogue." You can't make this stuff up.
posted by gatorae at 8:37 PM on July 29, 2016 [29 favorites]


there is an idea of a Donald Trump, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my ittybitty hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there. Sad!
posted by mccarty.tim at 8:37 PM on July 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


North Carolina - 4th Circuit ruling: NC State Conference of NAACP & Does, et al, v McRory et al (7-29-16, 83 pgs)

In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.


That is incredibly strong language for the court to be using. They are unequivocally saying "This law is not only racist, but intentionally racist, and we know you know it is racist, because you are lying to try to hide that fact."
posted by dersins at 8:42 PM on July 29, 2016 [90 favorites]


> Stein supports the anti-vaxxers

http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/
posted by joeyh at 8:42 PM on July 29, 2016


Much of Trump's music wasn't American. Why stop now?

Credit where it's due: Trump's father inspired legendary American singer-songwriter Woody Guthrie!
posted by homunculus at 8:43 PM on July 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


Donald Trump’s 4-Hour Sleep Habit Could Explain His Personality

So he is apparently kept up all night... not thinking.


It's all the uppers he is clearly taking large quantities of.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:44 PM on July 29, 2016


Why didn't Woody's son Arlo perform that song at the DNC?
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:46 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's all the uppers he is clearly taking large quantities of.

There are rumors that he takes phentermine...
posted by peeedro at 8:51 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


> Stein supports the anti-vaxxers

http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/


By implying that people should be suspicious of vaccines due to "corporate influence in medicine," Jill Stein is a de facto anti-vaxxer. The actual quotes in question:
I think that makes some people uncomfortable, so they’re trying to smear me as being anti-vaxxer. I’m not anti-vax; I’m just saying we need good, reliable data so that the American people know what we’re doing. I mean, it’s like saying the FDA, that has leadership from Monsanto, should tell us what kind of food is safe? No, you get Monsanto out of there, you get the pharmaceutical companies out of there, and then we can trust…
and
I don’t know if we have an “official” stance [on vaccination], but I can tell you my personal stance at this point. According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn’t allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn’t be skeptical?
Hey guess what Jill Stein, we have that fucking data. And it unequivocally disproves whatever "skeptic" point you're trying to make. If you want to reform the FDA, say so. But don't imply that vaccines are unsafe because you heard some talking point once, or you're trying to pander to the woo vote.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:53 PM on July 29, 2016 [56 favorites]


It's cool, the Green Party got rid of its official support of homeopathy almost three months ago. Nothing to see here.
posted by Justinian at 8:54 PM on July 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


That is incredibly strong language for the court to be using. They are unequivocally saying "This law is not only racist, but intentionally racist, and we know you know it is racist, because you are lying to try to hide that fact."

It fucking rules. I skimmed through a big chunk of the ruling during work today, and it's full of lines like this. Somebody was righteously pissed off when they wrote it.

I used this one as the pull quote when I posted it on Facebook:

"A finding that legislative justifications are “plausible” and “not unreasonable” is a far cry from a finding that a particular law would have been enacted without considerations of race."
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:55 PM on July 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Calling it now for Hillary, with the decision being final by midnight of election night.

Stop it! Go outside, turn around three times, and spit! You wanna invoke the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?
posted by mmoncur at 9:03 PM on July 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


yeah trump's inner life is either a hallucinatory phantasmagoria or totally nonexistent

It's just... urges. A leaky bucket of urges.

Mental health professionals have it drummed into them that they Do Not Diagnose From A Distance, but that doesn't stop them having off-duty conversations, and if you happen to know any mental health professionals, especially ones who've worked towards the severe end, they've probably had those off-duty conversations.
posted by holgate at 9:05 PM on July 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


The parents of the slain Muslim soldier, Khizr and Ghazala Khan, gave an interview on the Last Word.

They speak to the GOP leaders, and how they should repudiate Trump as a moral imperative.
posted by airish at 9:06 PM on July 29, 2016 [11 favorites]


Out of curiosity, other than debunking obvious slurs over the internet, is there anything I'm legally allowed to do as a British National to help the Clinton campaign.

Oust the Tories and fight for anything that might prevent Brexit. Our best leaders are going to need the partnership of your best leaders. We're all in this together.
posted by biogeo at 9:10 PM on July 29, 2016 [12 favorites]


You would figure if Trump really has some phobia or something about sleeping in his own bed someone on his campaign would have had him buy a residence in Chicago. He's got (or does he?) that fancy residential tower with his name on it even as a possible choice.
posted by Mitheral at 9:14 PM on July 29, 2016


But can Trump afford to buy a residence that fits his idea of what a Donald Trump residence should be?
posted by howfar at 9:16 PM on July 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


That is incredibly strong language for the court to be using. They are unequivocally saying "This law is not only racist, but intentionally racist, and we know you know it is racist, because you are lying to try to hide that fact."

Or to put it more bluntly, the 4th circuit is telling the state of North Carolina "You are a lying, racist piece of shit."
posted by dersins at 9:17 PM on July 29, 2016 [15 favorites]


If he's elected, he will sleep in the White House... after spending an obscene amount of money redecorating the Lincoln Bedroom into the Trump Bedroom (I assume tearing out at least two walls to expand).
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:27 PM on July 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


You left out the part where he borrows an obscene amount of money to spend on redecorating the Lincoln Bedroom.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:35 PM on July 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Orange food story time! One day I was visiting a friend's office and began expounding on my theory that all orange food is delicious, be it a natural or artificial food product. Peaches, cheetos, pumpkin, etc.: all delicious in their own way. The new administrative assistant had a little crush on me and listened attentively. Years later, after he quit, I got a phone call from his replacement. Apparently he had created a hint for a password for some website that read "What Carmicha thinks is delicious." The password was "OrangeFood."
posted by carmicha at 9:36 PM on July 29, 2016 [21 favorites]


Oh, and also:

was the thing about Charles Manson and Robert Mugabe endorsing Trump real or satire? (I know Kim Jong-Il and David Duke were real.)

I feel like we maybe need an anti-hamburger symbol to explicitly claim statements as non-sarcastic, if only for use in political threads. (What's the opposite of hamburger? Kale? Cow?)
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:41 PM on July 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


"borrows" the money? Nah, it'll come straight out of the budget for the Department of the Interior.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:42 PM on July 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


I have to say that all these election threads have been the only things keeping me sane through the conventions. I haven't commented before but I've been diligently reading through all of them, and thank you. My facebook feed is full of BoBs saying we're "doomed either way" and I just...it's so easy to get tired and demoralized. I was a Bernie supporter in the primaries but not a huge one, and the DNC sold me on Hillary and the Democratic platform this year. I was going to vote for her anyway, but now I'll be doing it without gritting my teeth. In any case, I find myself so disappointed in the left and the lack of nuance happening all over my facebook feed. The most recent post I saw was a video proclaiming that Bernie actually won the primary :/

So thank you metafilter for being the voice of reason, and for the thoughtful and complicated discussions that have been happening throughout these election threads. And thank you mods for keeping them that way.
posted by dysh at 9:42 PM on July 29, 2016 [37 favorites]


The risk of Trump winning is real, and I think it's tied up with how people view democracy in an individualistic era. People are frustrated because, whenever they vote, however they vote, they never seem to get what they voted for. They therefore conclude that democracy is broken. This is, of course, precisely the wrong conclusion. Everyone not getting what they voted for is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for a working democracy. But it feels unfair to people who are either used to making choices about their lives, or who aspire to that state because it is the dominant ideology of the age.

Hence the (relatively limited) real risk of President Trump. He represents, to a sizeable minority of people (the majority of whom are white men) a way to make democracy "work", by removing compromise from the outcome. Meanwhile, Clinton, or any sane politician, can only offer more of the same, the difficult compromises of real democracy.

This dissatisfaction with the compromises involved in a functioning democracy is what led to Brexit, and it is the reason I am still scared by the possibility of a Trump victory.
posted by howfar at 9:48 PM on July 29, 2016 [50 favorites]


This is also the root cause of the ongoing shitshow in the Labour Party.
posted by howfar at 9:50 PM on July 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm fucking scared, okay? I don't see this part of the state going blue. I'm trying to do what I can-- there's a diversity rally happening tomorrow that's only a half hour drive away, in a mid-size town with middle class aspirations, and I plan to be there. But it doesn't look half as organized as Obama's supporters did in this same region in 2008.

In a way, you have Tim Kaine to thank for that. He rewrote the book on how democrats win elections in Virginia. Mark Warner and Jim Webb won statewide positions by running "bubba campaigns", both advised by Mudcat Saunders, where they went after the gun-loving, NASCAR watching rural white vote. But when Kaine ran for governor, he saw that the state on the whole was becoming more liberal and the population centers of NoVa, Hampton Roads, and Richmond were blue enough that he could win the state running as an actual democrat, instead of a blue dog, and focused his energy there.

I don't think the Clinton campaign is going to put much resources towards your part of the commonwealth, they will probably get the most bang for their buck convincing veterans and military-adjacent people in Hampton Roads that Trump isn't Commander in Chief material. Hang in there and do what you can to keep your spirits up.
posted by peeedro at 9:55 PM on July 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


Now that Xeni has pointed this out, I can't stop seeing it.
I grew up in a home where the Man abused the Woman. Trump speaks about Hillary with the tone of a spouse abuser. It's my lil ptsd dogwhistle

That's why I believe it's so important that this man not win. I know what horrors tend to lie in the locked attics of men who use that tone
The namecalling, the constant denigration, the self-aggrandizement? I mean, I know that the GOP is the party of Daddy but that seems to be writing in in the sky in giant 50-foot letters of fire.

At the same time I also can't help but think of Trump as simultaneously being a little, angry boy, screaming about how he doesn't need naps. (Seriously, he's come out against naps? I guess if you take enough uppers...)
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:58 PM on July 29, 2016 [53 favorites]


Some sources reported this as an endorsement from Mugabe. It's a bit of a stretch, honestly.

The Manson thing turned out to be a joke.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:59 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Given the level of support Trump has touting a basically-fascist platform, even with every single fuckup he's committed, all it's gonna take is someone just as authoritarian but slightly-less-dim (like just BARELY more capable!) to swoop in... -- GregNog

Whenever someone worries too loudly about this person or that person not supporting Clinton loudly or strongly enough, I encourage them to relax and be thankful. Find religion if necessary, because God has handed us the easiest candidate to defeat in modern history.

Chill, people. No democrat (no, not even our beloved foot-shooting Democratic Party) could mess this up. Work on the downticket stuff. It's less glamorous but matters much more.

Or if you want nightmares, you masochists: imagine she had an actual opponent!
posted by rokusan at 9:59 PM on July 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Out of curiosity, other than debunking obvious slurs over the internet, is there anything I'm legally allowed to do as a British National to help the Clinton campaign?

Ready to make calls?
posted by kirkaracha at 10:05 PM on July 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Local media on firemarshal-gate. Also, the venue at the university was leased for the day by Trump's campaign, and the fact that the room only holds 1500 was known in advance.
posted by mochapickle at 10:16 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]




Of course that was known in advance. There's probably a fucking sign on the wall that says "max occupancy 1500", just like code requires in every assembly space in the country.
posted by LionIndex at 10:22 PM on July 29, 2016 [23 favorites]


So has anyone managed to figure out what exactly Hillary should be congratulating Trump for? What is it that he's done that's never been done before in the history of politics?
posted by dysh at 10:24 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


> Speaking of striking down voting restrictions, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also struck down North Carolina's.

Charles Pierce: Today Is a Great Day for Voting Rights. Allow me—and the Rev. Barber—to explain.
posted by homunculus at 10:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


He wanted to be congratulated because he got more delegate votes than any candidate ever? And obviously he was hurt because he spent so much time graciously congratulating Hillary for her nomination at the RNC.
posted by mochapickle at 10:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


About that fire marshal: I just asked him if he is a Democrat or a Republican, and he said "Yes."

That is one quick-thinking fire marshal.
posted by zachlipton at 10:25 PM on July 29, 2016 [53 favorites]


While I loved Bernie's speech, it was Mr. Khan's speech really was really effective. That's pretty much gone viral. It deserves to be in some sort of anthology of great, historic speeches. Bernie got me to say, 'OK, I could do this...' Mr.Khan however got me fired up.

Oh, I and a few Balkan friends have been calling Melania Trump 'Grofica' which means 'Countess'
Originally online information about Melania Trump said she was 'born in the confines of Sevnice castle'
All that stuff has been scrubbed.
I'd love to see the Slovenian equivalent of her 'long form' birth certificate.
The castle in Sevnice was owned by some Hapsburgs.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 10:27 PM on July 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


So has anyone managed to figure out what exactly Hillary should be congratulating Trump for? What is it that he's done that's never been done before in the history of politics?

first presidential candidate with no qualifications whatsoever
posted by murphy slaw at 10:27 PM on July 29, 2016 [40 favorites]


He wanted to be congratulated because he got more delegate votes than any candidate ever?

Clinton: 16,847,084 votes
Trump: 14,009,107 votes
posted by kirkaracha at 10:49 PM on July 29, 2016 [13 favorites]


With the room capacity thing, I bet that part of the problem is that it's intended basically as a basketball venue, with a large open floor space in the middle and bleacher seating on the sides. As such, it was built with enough exits to accommodate having the bleachers full plus assorted overflow capacity on the floor, but was never intended to be safe when literally packed full of people in every part of the room. Or it could be setup for seating on the floor with the bleachers left empty. If we look at the floorplan, we can see that the bleachers take up almost all the space on both sides of the room, which doesn't leave room for the kind of exits you'd need if you were actually packing in that many more people on the floor. And the exit behind the stage was blocked.

So Trump gets up there and concludes the room has visible floor space and flips out, because obviously his snap-decision is better than the guy who knows anything about fire marshaling. And then he decides it's all a big partisan conspiracy when really it's about ethics in not inviting people into a room they can't evacuate.

On the other hand, the organizers clearly knew days ago that the capacity would be 1,500, and the fire marshal let them bring in an extra 100 people, so they're even bigger idiots.
posted by zachlipton at 10:56 PM on July 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


Possibly this is what Katjusa Roquette referred to and I just missed it but Melania Trump's personal web site was taken down last week.
posted by XMLicious at 11:20 PM on July 29, 2016


Adult Swim just had a little interlude mocking the Buster's at the convention. I felt kinda bad. Not that bad, but still.
posted by bongo_x at 11:22 PM on July 29, 2016


i saw The Decembrists at Gallogly Events Center. i bet it was a better show. and, yes, at capacity there is lots of room to dance visible floor space.

uccs alum
posted by j_curiouser at 11:27 PM on July 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


What'd Adult Swim say about them?
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:49 PM on July 29, 2016


@realDonaldTrump
Hillary Clinton should not be given national security briefings in that she is a lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts.


I didn't believe Trump posted that, gatorae, and had to go check myself. Yep, he posted it. He also misspelled "loose" and "instincts", but hey, with a tweet like that, who cares about spelling?
posted by iffthen at 12:37 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's usually correct to assume that if Trump says it about somebody else, he means it about himself.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:39 AM on July 30, 2016 [19 favorites]


Every time I see BoBs in these threads I think of Outkast

I think of the artist B.o.B., and when people talk about "Busters" I interpret it according to this definition.
posted by iffthen at 12:46 AM on July 30, 2016


Hillary Clinton should not be given national security briefings in that she is a lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts.

No way Trump wrote that, it doesn't say "Crooked."


Already 139 characters, but yeah
posted by iffthen at 12:50 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I know that the GOP is the party of Daddy

the silver hair at the temples...the wide stance in the men's room
posted by thelonius at 1:06 AM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I spent way too much time debunking a FB friends post on how "See, this report PROVES that Bernie would have won"

Dropped a bunch of metafilter on them:

- website for the group that wrote the doc doesn't list authors, let alone a board, or staff, just "experienced election experts and things"
- In fact there are no authors in the document at all, but its shared from a google drive so I got that owners name
- 'donate' button prominently featured, nothing about 501c3 status, donate button takes you to a gofundme page
- lots of graphs and eye charts, and one graph explaining coin tosses.
- website was registered in april to a guy whose linked in page shows he worked at radioshack and verizon previously
- total of 5 different people named in the document, none of them show as any of the rolls identified through a cursory googling
- it's primary argument is a statistical model created by ron paul supporters in 2016 who were 'good at engineering'
posted by mrzarquon at 1:46 AM on July 30, 2016 [40 favorites]


I'm canvassing with the Clinton campaign tomorrow, but I'll believe in real change when the party actually takes actions to cut its anointed 2020 candidate off from the firehose of money during the primary that all the other Democratic candidates protested against, not just Bernie. I am not holding my breath because of carefully-worded aspirational statements that we're all expected to take as commitment to campaign finance reform.

I've never been a big believer in unilateral disarmament, myself.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:17 AM on July 30, 2016 [18 favorites]


Oh wait, no, Pence was actually scolding Obama for calling Trump a "demagogue." You can't make this stuff up.

This comment above reminded me that I needed a refresher on the meaning of demagogue.

First stop: dictionary.

demagogue:
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.


Political leader is a bit of a stretch, but otherwise sounds about right.

Let's try the Wiki:
4 The methods of demagogues
4.1 Scapegoating
4.2 Fearmongering
4.3 Lying
4.4 Emotional oratory and personal magnetism
4.5 Violence and physical intimidation
4.6 Personal insults and ridicule
4.7 Gross oversimplification
4.8 Accusing opponents of weakness and disloyalty


Holy shit! It's like the word was invented for the sole purpose of describing Donald Trump. Nice call, Mr. President!
posted by p3t3 at 2:55 AM on July 30, 2016 [71 favorites]


I've never been a big believer in unilateral disarmament, myself.

Absolutely. I want Citizens United overturned as much as anyone, but until it is, fuck giving the people who want to make it permanent and take away civil rights, marriage rights, abortion rights, freedom from religion, etc. a huge advantage in accomplishing that.
posted by chris24 at 4:20 AM on July 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


Noam fucking Chomsky on Democracy fucking Now on voting for Clinton in the general: "I don’t think there’s any other rational choice."
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:30 PM on July 29 [35 favorites +] [!]


I question the veracity of your username.
posted by rorgy at 4:24 AM on July 30, 2016 [35 favorites]


Eponadictory?
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:32 AM on July 30, 2016 [13 favorites]




He definitely is, but the debates are run by an independent commission that set the dates a year ago. If I was Clinton I'd say, "Oh, you're worried not enough people will see them? Let's add some."
posted by chris24 at 4:56 AM on July 30, 2016 [23 favorites]


> "'See, I thought she might do something like that. I thought she'd give me a big fat beautiful congratulations.'"

Dear god. How did we get here? "SHE'S A CRIMINAL! A CRIMINAL AND A LIAR! SHE SHOULD BE SHAVED AND BEATEN AND SET ON FIRE! Also, how come she never calls me? I'm hurt."
posted by kyrademon at 5:07 AM on July 30, 2016 [39 favorites]


Hey, so...

While I expect to tune in again once the debates start (and IF they start), one of my pledges this year was to stop following the news as it breaks. There's just too damn much of it, and it says nothing, and it's all the same thing anyway. Today Trump flips a shit at a fire marshall. Tomorrow he'll flip a shit at some other undeserving decent person. Leaks about terrible things Hillary Clinton might have done will come to light, and they will be bullshit, and that will not stop the people who are predisposed to care about such things.

Your knowing this will not change the outcome of this election. America will not find the decency it is lacking; it will not lose the decency it already has. The country won't change overnight.

If you do need to feel like you're involved, volunteer. Volunteer and you will not only be making a difference, but you are guaranteed to meet only people who are invested enough in Clinton to do the sake. No busters, no Trumpites. I'm sure they are all lovely people. (Social anxiety is preventing me from volunteering, because the thought of making calls or going door-to-door is low-grade terrifying, but I keep hovering on the fence of wanting to volunteer anyway, and deal with the emotional burnout later.)

More important than all that, I think, is... stop checking Facebook. Seriously. Even more so than Twitter, Facebook is mechanically–implemented insanity. You do not need the voices of everybody you know telling you what they think, and you do not need them responding to what you have to say, either. Your friends and family do not represent America, and killing yourself to either change their minds or even remain neutral in the wake of their posts does nobody any good. The psychic toll of being exposed to that stuff is very, very real.

I'm not saying isolate yourself. But you are responsible for the ways in which you connect. Choose the healthiest connections you can. That might be volunteering; it might be weekly pub meets with your close friends; it might be dog parks. Who knows. But please don't feel like you're responsible for witnessing and shouldering a burden this election that'll help nobody, teach you nothing, and be forgotten in four months anyway, as if it was all a fever dream. I'm sure Trump and his trolly legion loves knowing the misery they inflict upon those they disagree with. Don't let them have even that much unless you're getting sonething back that's worth it.
posted by rorgy at 5:18 AM on July 30, 2016 [24 favorites]


At least one of the debates is on a Wednesday night. Is he going to claim he can't miss Mr. Robot?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:20 AM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Seriously doubt Trump will skip the debates, but if he can construct a narrative that Hillary is a puppet master and has turned the debate structure against him, it sandbags him against suffering from a poor performance.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 5:21 AM on July 30, 2016


More important than all that, I think, is... stop checking Facebook.

While I agree that it can be depressing and not for everyone, I also think lies and misinformation shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged and fester and grow until the weight of them makes people think they must be true. I know I'm probably not convincing my BoB or Trump friends, but I don't really do it for them. I do it for the sane Republicans, the moderates, the whoever is watching who might not know that what they're saying is bullshit.
posted by chris24 at 5:27 AM on July 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


Regarding the sincerity of Hillary Clinton's desire to have Citizens United overturned, it's worth remembering that the case centred around the right of Koch-funded ratfuckers to spend unlimited amounts of money on slandering her personally. The plaintiffs argued that doing so inside proscribed time limits around an election was not "electioneering", and thus protected speech. The Republican majority was like "lol, no, it's totes electioneering, but that's okay, we'll just strike down a section of the law you didn't even try to challenge as unconstitutional because she's a bitch amirite?"
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:30 AM on July 30, 2016 [34 favorites]


Clinton Rally this afternoon in Pittsburgh at 5, at the convention center. There's a meetup proposed for either before or after but we haven't decided on a time or place yet.
posted by octothorpe at 5:32 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]




not so sure i buy this - just how, in today's world, does one keep an entire military base secret?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:36 AM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Of course el orange Chupacabra is going to try to skip the debates. HRC has knowledge, training, experience, and intelligence on her side. Trump has only playground tactics and squinting belligerence. If he goes head-to-head with her, he'll look like an enraged hamster who has challenged a jaguar to a duel-- and on some level, he has to know that.

So why submit to it voluntarily? He managed to skip a debate in the primary with zero consequences, so why not do that again now? His base will only love him the more for it, and it's not like the rest of us could possibly think any less of him.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 5:36 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Even if the statement was pure bluster -- that is, he made it without having received any information -- it LOOKS bad from a foreign policy standpoint. That is, the timing makes it seem like he revealed something, even if he didn't.
posted by devinemissk at 5:40 AM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


There are three options there:

1) There is no U.S. base in Saudi Arabia and Trump was making shit up or just combining half-remembered truths into something unrelated to reality.

2) He was thinking of Eskan Village Air Force Compound, which is not a "base" per the technical meaning of the term but is a military installation in Saudi Arabia that we possibly pay rent on.

3) There's an actual secret military base in Saudi Arabia and now other countries/NGOs know to look for it.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:41 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, as much as I hate Trump, I think this is more likely him not knowing the earlier base was closed or thinking of Eskan. Like he thought Tim Kaine was Tom Kean. Also, the WSJ article linked to in the BipartisanReport link describes the process for briefings and says the machinery to start them was just begun yesterday, not that he received one already.
posted by chris24 at 5:42 AM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Proves me wrong devinemissk. I predicted he'd do something like this around mid-August. It took him what, like 24 hours?
posted by lordrunningclam at 5:42 AM on July 30, 2016


BipartisanReport is also a shady "news" website.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:42 AM on July 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


just how, in today's world, does one keep an entire military base secret?

Really depends on how big it is. It's not that hard to hide a drone landing strip or a special forces forward staging base consisting of maybe a hanger and several helicopters/support vehicles. It's likely not a "secret" to the there people locally, but it sure as hell would be illegal to mention in the national press. There's only a very few organizations that have access to real-time satellite images, so it'd be entirely possible to hide a small installation in the desert.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:43 AM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Regarding the debates, Trump's handlers have to know he's going to come off terribly to a general election audience, he can't speak coherently about a single issue, and can't contain his rage-strokes with a live camera in front of him. I expect him to try and dominance play his way out of appearing on the same stage as Hilary. She may not be the most fantastic speaker (although she was pretty damn good this week), but she is widely acknowledged to but a fantastic debater, where her preparation and broad experience really shines through. Trump is going to get objectively killed, so if he can somehow strongarm his way out of a "corrupt" debate, he's going to try.

Although I do think it's hilarious he apparently thinks he can't out draw the Giants-Packers game.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:49 AM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


Or if you want nightmares, you masochists: imagine she had an actual opponent!

This election is a gross recapitulation of the life of every woman. We work hard to achieve and be accomplished and yet somehow we're still in serious competion against an idiot whose major accomplishment is being a dude.

This election isn't a nightmare; it's our everyday reality.
posted by winna at 5:53 AM on July 30, 2016 [185 favorites]


I was just thinking this morning that maybe the most troubling thing to me about this election isn't so many people agreeing with Trump's politics, it's so many people looking at him and going, "Yeah, sure, he sounds sane and rational and like a good person." He's so clearly operating under several raging personality disorders and perhaps a cognitive deficit of some sort, that so many people seem to think he's just a totally okay dude is really really..... It's just quite literally shocking to me. And upsetting. If he was running as a Democrat, with different politics, I still wouldn't vote for him, because he's a sociopath.
posted by soren_lorensen at 5:59 AM on July 30, 2016 [64 favorites]


Did Trump really just tweet out a poorly photoshopped picture of himself as Thomas the Tank Engine? Can we please get the rest of the election narrated by Ringo Starr and have an animated Trump Thomas steaming around the US getting into trouble with the Fat Controller. Come in Internet - make it happen!
posted by inflatablekiwi at 6:00 AM on July 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


I was just thinking this morning that maybe the most troubling thing to me about this election isn't so many people agreeing with Trump's politics, it's so many people looking at him and going, "Yeah, sure, he sounds sane and rational and like a good person."

he is sane and rational and like a good person in certain social circles

now you can be terrified
posted by pyramid termite at 6:02 AM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


now you can be terrified

I am never leaving the house again.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:04 AM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


how can he be thomas the tank engine? i thought he was chingacabra the caboose
posted by pyramid termite at 6:05 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Did Trump really just tweet out a poorly photoshopped picture of himself as Thomas the Tank Engine?

WHAT
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:10 AM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


So I was reading RedState this morning, which has become so much more fun now that Eric Ericson has become an anti-Trumper, and came across an op-ed about American politics turning into a horrible reality show. (I would argue with him that it has always been a circus.) His evidence? Oh you know the usual bathroom bullshit. But also that there is a GoFundMe to put Harambe the gorilla on Mt. Rushmore.

I get the feeling that is more a meme than an actual push to carve the likeness of a Gorilla into the mountain of a protected National Monument. For one thing that would be illegal. For another the amount to be raised is $20,000 which would accomplish nothing. But don't worry there has only been a $5.00 donation so far. I think it is really just something to spread around Facebook. That way you can show either your sympathy for a dead Gorilla or prove how dumb liberals are.

Another thing "proving" that America is going to hell is that Lefties are turning everything, including a popular hibachi routine into a sexual assault. I read the story so you don't have to. It turns out that it took place in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and the couple were from Texas and old enough to have grandchildren so I'm going to go out on a limb and guess they were not Lefties. The "sexual assault" which led the couple to call the police happened when the woman was squirted in the face by a boy doll filled with water as part of the floor show.
"(It happened) in front of our minor children and grandchildren," James Lassiter said.

"It really didn't have a wiener, but you got the point," Isabelle Lassiter said.
It really does not matter if the couple are Right Wingers or Left Wingers. What matters is they are stupid. So not really a sign that The Left is turning everything into a sexual assault.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:14 AM on July 30, 2016


Did Trump really just tweet out a poorly photoshopped picture of himself as Thomas the Tank Engine? Can we please get the rest of the election narrated by Ringo Starr and have an animated Trump Thomas steaming around the US getting into trouble with the Fat Controller. Come in Internet - make it happen!

The question that the left needs to answer: Should the Fat Controller be Pence or Ryan?
posted by Talez at 6:19 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


#FakeTrumpIntelligenceBriefing

My favorites:

The NSA finally reveals to him the identity of who let the dogs out.

Sir, "win big" is not a military strategy

No you can not declare war via twitter. Someone explain the concept of twitter wars

Missing Clinton Emails being held at Area 51. Must wear Aluminum Foil hat to enter. Code word: Scott Baio
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:28 AM on July 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


BREAKING: Hours After First Intelligence Briefing, Trump Likely Leaked CLASSIFIED Secrets

I'm gonna call bullshit on this. From the clickbait: "Trump attended an intelligence briefing this afternoon in which he was told sensitive information for his own safety and for the safety of Americans." This has not happened yet. The security briefing is a full-day thing with either the Director of the CIA or the Director of National Intelligence. It's a big to-do high level briefing. Trump and Pence haven't done this yet. They've been fundraising and campaigning, they have not had a full day in DC for any briefings.
posted by peeedro at 6:31 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


"No need to worry about the Chutari invasion sir we have the Avengers for that" (cite)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:31 AM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


BipartisanReport is also a shady "news" website.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:42 AM on 7/30
[+] [!]


Ah. I realized it was not mainstream, of course, but was unaware of its shadiness. I'll be more credulous next time.
posted by devinemissk at 6:32 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'll be more credulous next time.
I think less credulous is what we're hoping for, but we've got your back either way.
posted by Floydd at 6:36 AM on July 30, 2016 [21 favorites]


Ok, time to put the comment box away until I've had more coffee.
posted by devinemissk at 6:38 AM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Regarding convincing BoB's to vote for Hilary. I gotta say I lean towards ROU_Xenophobe 's approach. I don't think you gain anything by the "grow up" insults, and aren't making an especially appealing by going for feelings of guilt or fear. Those are intimidation style tactics that don't do well with people already upset over their choices. It can come across, regardless of intent, as paternalistic or otherwise disrespectful.

I'm also a little iffy on attacking votes of conscience purely on the face of it. I mean the rationality arguments are fine when you're comparing candidates, but, for example, if Ted Cruz was running against Donald Trump there isn't anything you could say that would get me to cast a vote for either of them. If the people you are trying to convince believe Hilary is roughly the equivalent of Cruz, then you're going to have a problem.

To even try to address that would require first trying to find out why it is they hate Hilary so much from their own words, and then address those concerns, mostly by pointing out how so many of the talking points surrounding Hilary are largely fake or blown out of proportion coming from Karl Rove and from her marriage to Bill Clinton. Separate Bill's presidency from Hilary, emphasize the platform she put forward and her service. Don't oversell, keep expectations within a reasonable grasp of their current position. You're only trying to nudge them to see things from a different perspective, not drag these people somewhere they don't want to go.

Compare Hilary's positions to Jill Stein, is Stein really a good candidate? If not then they aren't really voting their conscience so much as voting for yet another "lesser evil". There should be ample opportunity to suggest, not demand, that Stein is a worse real choice than Hilary along any number of lines even were Stein equally likely to get elected.

Foreign policy, I think, is going to be a key sticking point now that Hilary has gone so far left on domestic issues. I'd suggest mention things like Brexit, and question the largely vague green ideals on foreign involvement if it goes that far since their policies would roughly be how Bush dealt with Iraq, drive the bad guys out, but have no plan for how to positively effect change once that happens which, and we know how that worked out.

From that you might segue into talking about the opportunities Sanders created in helping push the democrats left. How now they're beholden to the left with all the promises made at their convention. It isn't a time to stop fighting and protesting, just change the goal of those protests to making better policies. Keep emphasizing all the people being brought front and center in the party for the first time and stress the new vocabularies being used. Having a candidate talk about systemic racism is no small victory in and of itself.

Side with them, offer ideas on future strategies to keep the pressure on Clinton to keep her promises. Talk to them as if you know you and they already agree, since it's true, you do on so many issues, so don't let the areas where you don't agree or their anger get in the way of showing how similar your beliefs really are. Basically, show them some respect just like you'd want to receive if your opinion was an unpopular one. Leave the berating and yelling for the rest of the twittersphere, be a positive outlet for progress instead.
posted by gusottertrout at 6:40 AM on July 30, 2016 [25 favorites]


Sorry, that was longer than I meant it to be. The short version: The best way I know to change minds is to not try to win arguments like a debate team, but to shift the discussion to where the other person can find a space to reach the answer for themselves without feeling like they've lost ground.
posted by gusottertrout at 6:47 AM on July 30, 2016 [43 favorites]


I don't think Bernie or Busters are as big a demographic as people seem to think. I would post that their numbers are declining every day; I doubt they will have any impact on the election, and it's the true independents and undecideds that should get attention going forward.
posted by cell divide at 6:48 AM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


. . . I think it is really just something to spread around Facebook. That way you can show either your sympathy for a dead Gorilla or prove how dumb liberals are.

Over-the-top grief for Harambe is a meme I don't get. I can't tell if it's a catchphrase mocking the ridiculously short memory of the news cycle or a crypto-racist signal. I can definitely tell that I'm getting old though ("the kids are joking and I don't understand them is it because they are DEPRAVED")
posted by Countess Elena at 6:50 AM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


I woke up this morning to discover that my kids had substituted their usual Saturday morning YouTube Minecraft videos with Hillary Clinton's acceptance speech.
posted by humanfont at 6:51 AM on July 30, 2016 [76 favorites]


Has anyone analyzed Trump's speeches and tweets vs. Randall Munroe's simple English dictionary?
posted by Andrhia at 6:58 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


to gusottertrout's point:

How to Listen When You Disagree
posted by devinemissk at 7:00 AM on July 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


the trump endorsement train keeps rolling along! recent highlights:
Robert Mugabe
Kim Jong-Un
Charles Manson
David Duke
Anyone want to start a pool for his next endorsement?


I was going to have some fun and suggest a fictional character from popular media, but I can't come up with a villain that is both Truly Evil Grrr enough to make the joke land who would also actually endorse Trump in such a way that it fits with their characterization.
  • Doctor Doom would see Trump as an amateur charlatan who on his best days is nowhere near as successful and glorious as Doom.
  • The Joker wouldn't like anyone who can out-crazy him.
  • For the Reverse Flash, Trump has been dead for centuries.
  • Doctor Nefarious is more of a robot supremacist, so he wouldn't be on board with Trump's "white humans first" policies.
The only name I can come up with that fits is Hill Valley's own Biff Tannen and, well, that's already been done far better than I could ever state it.
posted by Servo5678 at 7:01 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Over-the-top grief for Harambe is a meme I don't get. I can't tell if it's a catchphrase mocking the ridiculously short memory of the news cycle or a crypto-racist signal. I can definitely tell that I'm getting old though ("the kids are joking and I don't understand them is it because they are DEPRAVED")

@jimpjorps:
Harambe symbolizes our utter helplessness in the face of the machinations of our country's two-party system, murking our future's domes
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:11 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


This morning my Facebook feed is full of BoBs sharing this article about Election Justice USA's findings of fraud in the primary, and saying that Bernie would have won without said fraud. Is this legit?
posted by rabbitrabbit at 7:15 AM on July 30, 2016


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

no
posted by dersins at 7:18 AM on July 30, 2016 [34 favorites]


I don't think Bernie or Busters are as big a demographic as people seem to think. I would post that their numbers are declining every day; I doubt they will have any impact on the election, and it's the true independents and undecideds that should get attention going forward.

This is undoubtedly the case. It's still very, very early (I know it doesn't' feel like it, but it really is) in the election season, and the amount of Busters is only going to keep declining. There have been no 4-way polls post-DNC yet. It won't be more than a tiny percentage of Bernie primary voters who still refuse to vote Clinton on election day. We should know a lot more about the real state of the race this week after seeing if/how much of a convention bump Clinton gets, and if she loses ground again as the polling likely stabilizes until September.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:22 AM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is this legit?

See mqrzarquon's earlier post.
posted by chris24 at 7:22 AM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Red Skull would be delighted by the rise of Trump. Heck, he might even plot to kidnap The Donald and take over his campaign.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:29 AM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Election Justice USA is basically Shyla Nelson a Vermont based musician, climate activist and Bernie delegate. She walked out after the roll call vote.

Interesting how they don't mention how the Sanders team admitted to giving their people trick coins in Nevada, the request by sanders to reduce polling stations in Puerto Rico and the Washington State primary vs caucus results.
posted by humanfont at 7:36 AM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


> Social anxiety is preventing me from volunteering, because the thought of making calls or going door-to-door is low-grade terrifying, but I keep hovering on the fence of wanting to volunteer anyway

Right there with you. I wish the Clinton campaign needed, like, something alphabetized, or wanted a big stack of boxes moved from point A to point B, or something. I would be all over that.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:38 AM on July 30, 2016 [67 favorites]


At least a couple of the Four Horsemen would also enthusiastically endorse Trump.

iffthen: "He also misspelled "loose" and "instincts", but hey, with a tweet like that, who cares about spelling?"

I'm not convinced that lose was a typo, he may think the phrase is lose cannon as in a cannon that loses.

rorgy: "(Social anxiety is preventing me from volunteering, because the thought of making calls or going door-to-door is low-grade terrifying, but I keep hovering on the fence of wanting to volunteer anyway, and deal with the emotional burnout later.)
"

I'm sure they can use runners, photocopiers, drivers, and people to answer the phone too.

Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish: "There's an actual secret military base in Saudi Arabia and now other countries/NGOs know to look for it"

More importantly if it was true it would signal to all the other countries with secret US bases that the existence of those bases could be outed by Trump; something that is sure to be unpopular some places.
posted by Mitheral at 7:39 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]



Interesting how they don't mention how the Sanders team admitted to giving their people trick coins in Nevada, the request by sanders to reduce polling stations in Puerto Rico and the Washington State primary vs caucus results.


I was more interested in looking for references to the disenfranchisement of black and brown people but then I got bored and wandered away
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:45 AM on July 30, 2016




rabbitrabbit: "This morning my Facebook feed is full of BoBs sharing this article about Election Justice USA's findings of fraud in the primary, and saying that Bernie would have won without said fraud. Is this legit?"

The convention's over and Sanders endorsed Clinton, can we stop refighting the primaries?
posted by octothorpe at 7:49 AM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]




I bet if we got access to RNC and right wing super-pac emails we would see there was a much bigger conspiracy to push Bernie Sanders.
posted by humanfont at 7:54 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm assuming Silver is using some kind of "house effect" adjustment, because the poll itself shows a 15-point lead, 46-31.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:54 AM on July 30, 2016


Bernie would have won without election fraud, eh? Then how come every single national poll during the primaries had Clinton leading Sanders by roughly 5-15 points? There was no fraud. More people preferred Clinton. Full stop.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:55 AM on July 30, 2016 [20 favorites]


He's saying it's a 10-point bounce, not a 10-point lead.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:57 AM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


I wish the Clinton campaign needed, like, something alphabetized, or wanted a big stack of boxes moved from point A to point B, or something. I would be all over that.
They actually do need people to do data entry. There are usually a ton of volunteers to do data, because a lot of people don't enjoy talking to people, but this early they actually might appreciate data volunteers.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:00 AM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Duh *smacks forehead*

Good catch, thanks.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:01 AM on July 30, 2016


That poll puts Trump only four points over the crazification factor of 27%.
posted by octothorpe at 8:01 AM on July 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


Thanks everyone. Octothorpe, I am absolutely NOT interested in "refighting" the primaries, I am interested in knowing whether we have anything to worry about w/r/t damage to the Clinton campaign.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 8:01 AM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


ExistentialDread posted this piece from Politico in the thread last night but I'm reposting it because some people might not have read it and if that is you put down your knitting and click right over there.
On the day of the speech, he grabbed his worn copy of the Constitution and slipped it in his jacket pocket. He carries it regularly, especially when he travels. “It’s my favorite document. I wanted to use it because I wanted to highlight the protections that immigrants have in this country.”

Walking on stage he knew the pocket-sized book was going to come out of his pocket before the evening was done.

“The main purpose of my speech was to bring awareness about the constitutional protections that each citizen of the United States enjoys and to try to prevent the scare that immigrant communities are feeling about the misinformation that one candidate had been pandering. So the effort was to put these worried minds at ease by asking that question: ‘Have you even read the constitution?’”
Khizr Khan wasn't waving that pocket Constitution in Donald Trump's face. He was brandishing it for us, for these traumatized and anxious immigrant communities wondering if this is our home.

Khizr Khan says: according to this document, you belong here.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:11 AM on July 30, 2016 [121 favorites]


Oh man, that Xeni observation about domestic violence got me right in the gut, I have a violent ex with a violent father,. It's been easy to parse all along (I mean since the 80's) that Trump was a misogynist but until I saw that tweet, I never realized that yes, that's the specific misogynist language of domestic violence.
posted by crush-onastick at 8:13 AM on July 30, 2016 [16 favorites]


I bet if we got access to RNC and right wing super-pac emails we would see there was a much bigger conspiracy to push Bernie Sanders.

Vast, even.
posted by thelonius at 8:19 AM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Sam Wang, A Local Experiment In Crowd Wisdom - "I have finally converted my statistical politics hobby into material gain."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:21 AM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Wang is now in the lovely, snuggly pocket of big sweatshirt.
posted by howfar at 8:26 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


On the fire marshall thing: It makes a lot more sense to have a slightly too small space than a slightly too large space. The optics of a room bursting at capacity with crowds outside who want to come in is much, much better than empty spaces. Trump knows this. Trump's campaign knows this. But Trump's only playbook is attack, blame others, attack, followed by a bit of blaming others. It's the only story he knows, and his base loves it, and he lives for their love, so why stop now?
posted by aspo at 8:27 AM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Word from a local carpenter/set-builder is that Trump will be appearing in MPLS tonight at the Pantages theatre. They weren't told anything but it was pretty obvious what they were doing. He was wondering the best way to get the word out.
posted by localhuman at 8:28 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Word from a local carpenter/set-builder is that Trump will be appearing in MPLS tonight at the Pantages theatre. They weren't told anything but it was pretty obvious what they were doing. He was wondering the best way to get the word out.

Tell him to call local media. They'd love a scoop like that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:29 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Trump is willing to waste a campaign day in a state where he has .0000001 percent chance of winning....well, go right ahead.
posted by gimonca at 8:35 AM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Adding to what gusottertrout said above, there's just one more important thing: mix up idealism with some straight pragmatism reminding that Bernie already managed to make the DNC take his proposals seriously, despite being an outsider candidate most people didn't even know two years ago (as opposed to Hillary, who's a global public figure for 25 years or so). The only way to lead party and country to Sanders' vision is to back Hillary now and making sure she and the Democrats stay on this course and are accountable for these promises. Sanderism only dies if they give up on the only party that would put him close to the WH. If this was accomplished in just two years from the ground up, make them imagine what could be done in four or eight, slowly building political clout inside the party. Sanders is not becoming president, but he has put the foot in the door so his ideals could. And why let this all go to waste?
posted by lmfsilva at 8:45 AM on July 30, 2016 [19 favorites]


If Trump is willing to waste a campaign day in a state where he has .0000001 percent chance of winning....well, go right ahead.

Is he really going to base his itinerary around places he can commute to?

I guess stranger things have happened in the Trump campaign.
posted by howfar at 8:58 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sanderism

oh god no please let's don't
posted by dersins at 8:59 AM on July 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


A 10-point bounce would be in line with how convention bounces worked before the Internet era, but it'd be extraordinary now. Still, I'd look to this as an outlier. I think her bounce will be bigger than Trump's, but I was thinking more like 5-7 points.
posted by dw at 9:00 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Was there any word on how many people were turned away at the Colorado event? Trump has a long history of saying there are thousands of people outside his rallies trying to get in when in reality there are a few dozen.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:03 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


oh god no please let's don't
If you want to catch fish, use a bait. Call it sanderism, social democracy, anything. But give those on the left something to believe they have a platform in place inside the party.

But nah, if Trump wins, it's was the berniebros/left fault, amirite?
posted by lmfsilva at 9:04 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Very soothing/reassuring: checking in every so often with electoral-vote.com, which today shows Clinton at 284.
posted by mothershock at 9:07 AM on July 30, 2016




Interesting poll from RABA with some suggestive things about the bounce. Basically, the convention seems to have gone over well with everyone, but voters over 60 were most likely to think it was a success. (46% of voters over 60 thought it was a success, compared to 21% who thought it was a failure and 20% who said it was neither.) They're also the age-group who are most likely to say they're paying close attention to the race, most likely to say they're voting for Clinton, and least likely to say that they're not sure who they're going to vote for. I think the convention bounce may be that the DNC convinced older voters, who were more likely to watch, to vote for Clinton. And that's good, because the olds turn out reliably.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:09 AM on July 30, 2016 [22 favorites]


This story (of Hillary Clinton, as senator, helping a man manage payments for care for bladder cancer) is making the rounds. One thing that's particularly troubling to me is this sentence, though: " My friends--again female--at the Museum kept my cancer a secret, and probably saved my job."

I really hope that when Hillary Clinton is president, we can do a better job ensuring that nobody needs to worry about losing their job for having cancer.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:09 AM on July 30, 2016 [19 favorites]


But give those on the left something to believe they have a platform in place inside the party.

How about the actual, like, y'know, platform, which is the most progressive in Dem party history, and, as has been noted, has been called "80% of what we wanted" by Sanders insiders.

But nah, if Trump wins, it's was the berniebros/left fault, amirite?

No, it would be almost entirely the fault of the the idiots who voted for Trump.

But it is undeniable that some part of that blame would fall also on the idiots who refused to vote against him--or voted against him in utterly ineffectual ways--because reasons.
posted by dersins at 9:10 AM on July 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump has no campaign plan. How he decides what he's going to say, where he'll go, what he'll pretend to care about next ... it's just about random. If he wins this it proves either that campaigning doesn't actually matter or that anti-campaigning will work at least once.

I think the man is at the onset of a serious mental breakdown. I see (to pick a number out of the air) a 1/4 chance of the following:

-- Trump decides to pick some very strange, esoteric fight that no one cares about. A bit like a combination of his multi-day beef against Judge Curiel + his current rage at the fire marshal. But it won't even be a political opponent, it will be some peripheral figure. He'll escalate his rage, a few surrogates will gamely try to stand up for his outrage, but as it goes on and on he'll be all alone.
-- He'll start not showing up for rallies, go radio silence for days at a time, call in to talk shows and ramble about irrelevant nonsense, and other erratic behaviors. The press will start to wonder if Trump is actually cracking up, and may even at least whisper about prescription drug abuse.
-- He will actually, genuinely threaten direct physical harm on a woman. My bet is not Hillary; he can remember (barely) not to physically threaten her. Maybe Ted Cruz' wife. A reporter. Something along the lines of "you oughta see how they'd treat you in prison, honey, a lot worse than I would. You'd get what you deserve."
-- A few surrogates and reluctant endorsers drop out and denounce him. Maybe a big name like Laura Bush, perhaps her husband as well.
-- Polls begin to suggest an actual free-fall.
-- Trump cancels travel and debates, says the system is too rigged, he's going to do it his way and speak directly to the American people. He's discovered you can have a YouTube "channel" and he's going to name it TrumpTV, touting this as a major new thing. He starts to air some very strange videos, remixes of past speeches with weird music and arbitrary facts and threats.
-- But he can't resist rallies, so from now on they'll all happen on his property, in the lobbies of his hotels or on the grounds of Mar-a-Lago.
-- With polls dropping and attacks intensifying, Trump lapses into some actual flippetty-bippy-boo speech that doesn't make sense no matter how many times you replay it (or reread the tweet). The campaign now moves to whether Trump is literally mentally unfit to serve, and if/how the GOP can scramble for a replacement.
-- VP debate goes on (yawn). One presidential debate is aired with Hillary "debating" an empty lectern. Trump tries to preempt the broadcast with footage of himself in his office at Trump tower, looking like one of those bizarre late-night preachers you used to find on UHF.
-- Trump actually shows up for one debate, doesn't drool on himself, barely says anything that can either be considered factual or not, but gets initial approval from the press for sounding roughly coherent. The next morning, though, Trump sabotages his moment of "triumph" with more self-sabotage at a "press conference". Snapshot polls from the debates show people were impressed with Clinton and scared by Trump.
-- All but the hardest of the die-hards have withdrawn their endorsements by now. The GOP kicks around drafting Paul Ryan but discovers it isn't possible. A less deranged but no less fringey candidate — Ted Cruz-like — becomes the write-in of choice, and maybe gets on a few state ballots as an independent. Call him Xian.
-- Hillary wins: Hillary 51%, Trump 31%, Xian 14%, other 4%.

Like I said, about 1/4 odds in my mind. I'd also say about 4% chance Trump OD's on prescription meds during the campaign
posted by argybarg at 9:10 AM on July 30, 2016 [32 favorites]


You don't even have to concede that Hillary's not a crook.

As the French said, "Votez escroc, pas facho!" When the socialists lost they didn't take their ball and go home. They came out in greater numbers to make sure Le Pen wouldn't even get to sniff the seat of the presidency. They walked into election booths with clothes pegs on their noses.

Trump can't just lose by only getting 268 EVs. He needs to be beaten so soundly that Republican leaders won't let a petty demagogue try a stunt like this ever again.
posted by Talez at 9:15 AM on July 30, 2016 [20 favorites]


Maybe that's something we could start? Clothespins for Hillary: Because Trump is worse!

Go into the voting booth with a peg on your nose to emphasise how much you don't like her but you dislike Trump even more.
posted by Talez at 9:19 AM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


That does not strike me as a strategy likely to inspire.
posted by dersins at 9:20 AM on July 30, 2016 [25 favorites]


Clothespins for Hillary: Because Trump is worse!

No thanks.
posted by argybarg at 9:20 AM on July 30, 2016 [21 favorites]


Go into the voting booth with a peg on your nose to emphasise how much you don't like her but you dislike Trump even more.

Ummm.
posted by Mooski at 9:20 AM on July 30, 2016


The socialists did it when they voted for Chirac.
posted by Talez at 9:21 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


They walked into election booths with clothes pegs on their noses.
Maybe that's something we could start? Clothespins for Hillary: Because Trump is worse!


I love this.
posted by dis_integration at 9:21 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Clothespin Campaign here's a good article. I think it actually might be effective at mobilizing young people who think that their vote is some kind expression of faith and not just what it is, a vote.
posted by dis_integration at 9:24 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


John Cole: All The Good Shit Belongs to US
Now first things first. Dems were always patriotic- it was Republicans who confused patriotism with just agreeing with whatever bullshit the government said while we rushed into war and had their heads so far up Rush Limbaugh’s ass they couldn’t see straight.

At the same time, this was the most overt display of patriotism I have ever witnessed, but without what I felt was the jingoism of the right. And I gotta add, I find overt patriotism unsettling and uncomfortable outside World Cup events and the Olympics. I’m more of a hang a flag out front of the house and watch white people dance awkwardly on the PBS 4th of July specials than I am the tattoo an eagle on my chest and scream “USA!! USA!!” while pissing Budweiser on a stack of back issues of Le Monde. But that’s just me.

[...]

That’s right. We Democrats get ALL THE GOOD SHIT NOW. We get the most progressive platform and agenda in my lifetime, we get to cheer for our troops and say NO MORE STUPID WARS. We get to stand up and say Black Lives Matter and thank the cops who risk their lives because we’re fucking smart enough to hold two god damned ideas in our heads. We get to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and gay people to marry and still get to rock the house as Rev. Barber brings down the fucking roof in the name of the almighty.

We get it all. We get all the good stuff. The whole kit and kaboodle. The Republicans get Trump and his dingy digits and we get to make them wear it and own it. Progressives didn’t lose the Democratic party. Republicans lost their fucking minds.

Sucks to be them. We get all the balloons, too.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:25 AM on July 30, 2016 [91 favorites]


I really dislike the clothespin thing. I don't feel that way about Hillary, and I don't think anything good comes of pandering to people who do.
posted by argybarg at 9:26 AM on July 30, 2016 [44 favorites]


God forbid that she be a normal candidate that decent people could just vote for without making an enormous show about how awful she is.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:28 AM on July 30, 2016 [90 favorites]


We know how most of the commenters here feel but a lot of people do feel that way about Hillary and they have legitimate reasons for it but are still holding their noses at the polls. The good that comes from "pandering" would be a victory for the democrats.
posted by dis_integration at 9:28 AM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I really dislike the clothespin thing. I don't feel that way about Hillary, and I don't think anything good comes of pandering to people who do.

Then don't do it. This is aimed at Busters.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:29 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I really hate the clothespin thing.
posted by octothorpe at 9:29 AM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


The socialists did it when they voted for Chirac.

To cast one's vote is to participate in the democratic processes of society. It is by its very nature an action that says "I am part of this larger thing, and I will do my part in this larger thing, because it is important."

To turn the act of voting into a self-indulgent performance is to say "I am more important than this larger thing."
posted by dersins at 9:29 AM on July 30, 2016 [24 favorites]


Surely it'd be more effective to point out that Hilary has basically adopted all of Sanders' platform, look at that speech, she laid out easily the most progressive vision of any major party candidate, ever. Clothespins aren't going to inspire anyone to hold her to that vision and get involved in down ticket races for even more progressive candidates.

Really, name something in Bernie's platform that she didn't hit in her acceptance speech. Free college, taxes, Wall St regulation, money in politics, maybe she missed opposition to the TPP, but that's about it. Berners need to realize that they won 75% of the battle to this point, but we're only like 6% of the way through the war.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:30 AM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Me either. I like Hillary just damn fine. I think that is, for lack of a better word, an extremely adolescent thing to do. Besides, have you put a clothespin on your nose lately? I tried it when I was a kid because it looks funny in a cartoon, but those bastards pinch hard.
posted by Countess Elena at 9:30 AM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yeah, that's as stupid and childish as the "fart in" idea. No thanks.
posted by Roommate at 9:31 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


To turn the act of voting into a self-indulgent performance is to say "I am more important than this larger thing."

Or it's a way of giving expression to a political viewpoint that is lost in the voting process? A way for the left to say: we're not going to vote Trump in out of spite, but we're a voice to be listened to? It's not self-indulgent to have a political viewpoint that differs from yours.
posted by dis_integration at 9:31 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


they have legitimate reasons for it

I don't accept your premise. I think most of those people are speaking out of unexamined sexism. They would not be speaking this way about Biden.
posted by OmieWise at 9:32 AM on July 30, 2016 [35 favorites]


You're talking about Socialists in a multi-party system. We are not a multi-party system.

"Voting someone whose stink disgusts me" is not something you can convince a lot of BoB's to do. Nor should you.

Wear a bird. Show you love Bernie still.
posted by argybarg at 9:33 AM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


a political viewpoint that is lost in the voting process?

Other than almost all the damn platform and her acceptance speech?
posted by chris24 at 9:33 AM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


A way for the left to say: we're not going to vote Trump in out of spite, but we're a voice to be listened to?

BUT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE LISTENED. Look at the platform. What will it take to satisfy these people? Instead of free college you get paid to go? Instead of just repealing Citizen's United we set the people who drafted it on fire?

You can be farther-left than Clinton and you can even be skeptical about her sincerity on these things (I am not), but it it transparently obvious that the left IS being listened to, to a greater degree than ever in our lifetimes. Take the fucking victory. Then push for her to actually implement this stuff. But don't stamp your feet and insist you aren't being given things that you literally have been given.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:34 AM on July 30, 2016 [100 favorites]


The more photos there are of doofuses coming out of polling places with clothespins on their nose or tape over their mouths or SILENCED ALL MY LIFE shirts or whatever, the more the media will de-legitimize her presidency and the harder it will be to actually pass an increase to the minimum wage, much less new taxes for rich jerks or expensive new programs. It is a terrible bad awful idea. Doubleplusungood.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:35 AM on July 30, 2016 [82 favorites]


I don't accept your premise. I think most of those people are speaking out of unexamined sexism. They would not be speaking this way about Biden.

Can we not go through this over and over again? Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. It's unhelpful. It is really possible to be unhappy with Clinton without sexism being the reason.
posted by dis_integration at 9:37 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


BUT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE LISTENED. Look at the platform. What will it take to satisfy these people? Instead of free college you get paid to go? Instead of just repealing Citizen's United we set the people who drafted it on fire?

They honest to god don't believe her, that she's just saying whatever she needs to in order to get elected.
posted by Talez at 9:37 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


It is really possible to be unhappy with Clinton without sexism being the reason.

When she gives people basically everything they ask of her and they still hate her, it causes people to wonder.
posted by chris24 at 9:38 AM on July 30, 2016 [56 favorites]


For every leftier-than-thou Buster type that's moved by that kind of stunt, there'd probably be half a dozen or more people who'd see it as reinforcing the negatives about Hillary that her campaign has gone to great lengths to overcome. Why squander Hillary's more inclusive message by trying to double down on appealing to the segment of Bernie's faction that's too good for Bernie when he's already said they should vote for her?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:38 AM on July 30, 2016 [20 favorites]


Wear a bird. Show you love Bernie still.

Yeah, I'm much more able to get behind saying "I love Bernie" while I'm voting than saying "This woman revolts me, but I'm voting for her anyways."

Kinda keeps with the Love Trumps Hate narrative too, ya know?
posted by Mooski at 9:38 AM on July 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


I mean, you can't undo the coup in Honduras through the DNC platform.
posted by dis_integration at 9:38 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Or it's a way of giving expression to a political viewpoint that is lost in the voting process?

If that viewpoint is "Even though her platform is almost entirely what I want, Clinton still stinks," then I am perfectly content to have it go unrepresented in the voting process.
posted by dersins at 9:38 AM on July 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


It is really possible to be unhappy with Clinton without sexism being the reason.

I'm finding this increasingly unlikely, actually.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:39 AM on July 30, 2016 [38 favorites]


They honest to god don't believe her, that she's just saying whatever she needs to in order to get elected.

Even if that were true - name the last election where any candidate felt they needed to pander to the left like that. It represents a sea change that is broader than Clinton and the only way to take advantage of it and keep that momentum going it to elect the person who is at least bothering to pander.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:39 AM on July 30, 2016 [23 favorites]


Wear a bird. Show you love Bernie still.

I'm picturing, like, a cardstock bird with sticker backing on the feet that could perch on a Clinton pin. I'd wear one of those.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:42 AM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


-- He will actually, genuinely threaten direct physical harm on a woman. My bet is not Hillary; he can remember (barely) not to physically threaten her. Maybe Ted Cruz' wife. A reporter. Something along the lines of "you oughta see how they'd treat you in prison, honey, a lot worse than I would. You'd get what you deserve."
You guys are just writing bad fanfiction now. This election is melting people's brains into goo.
posted by stavrogin at 9:42 AM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


When 73% of Bernie or Busters love Biden who is practically her idealogical and political clone, but 91% hate her, I'm going to go out on a limb and say some sexism might be the cause.
posted by chris24 at 9:43 AM on July 30, 2016 [122 favorites]


Corey Robin: Philadelphia Stories: From Reagan to Trump to the DNC
So does any of this matter? Why do I keep harping on the non-newness of Donald Trump, why do I keep resurrecting the multiple precedents for his candidacy against those who would argue for its novelty and innovations?
Part of the reason is that it is an offense against history and memory to pretend that the GOP of the past was somehow a party of reasonable men, clear-headed and basically decent moderates who were taking the car out for a Sunday spin when it all of a sudden it got hijacked by neighborhood toughs and crazed yahoos.

This is not a new argument with me. I’ve been trying for years to explain to dubious liberals and skeptical leftists that Trumpism is what this party is all about, that the “rational, prudential conservatives they think they know are in fact ultra-revanchist songstresses of domination and violence.”
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:43 AM on July 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'm picturing, like, a cardstock bird with sticker backing on the feet that could perch on a Clinton pin. I'd wear one of those.

Or a t-shirt / pin of a Bernie bird wearing a Hillary pin.
posted by dersins at 9:43 AM on July 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


It makes a lot more sense to have a slightly too small space than a slightly too large space. The optics of a room bursting at capacity with crowds outside who want to come in is much, much better than empty spaces. Trump knows this. Trump's campaign knows this.

You'd think so, but compare pictures of the floor at the RNC to the DNC. The RNC setup had huge aisles and the carpeting was bright red, making the floor look emptier and making any empty seats stand out more. A bigger stage could have made the floor seating area more dense and look more full and darker carpet would have helped. It was the first thing I noticed, I kept wonder when the floor was going to fill up but it was already full.
posted by peeedro at 9:44 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


So what you are telling me is that the Busters said "We want XYZ."

Hillary listened and gave them XYZ.

Now they don't believe her?

Short of inventing a time machine so she can go back in time and make completely different choices and be a completely different person, I think she has lost them. Fine. Move on. Let them vote for Trump or not vote or vote for Stein. I don't believe that it is going to make much difference.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:45 AM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Jesus, can we give Bernie/Hillary a break for more than five minutes? Instead, let's contemplate how Black Women's Emotional Labor Saved the DNC.
posted by TwoStride at 9:46 AM on July 30, 2016 [49 favorites]


Well just got unfriended by that same person whose "Bernie Could have Won" think tanks post I questioned.
posted by mrzarquon at 9:47 AM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Biden isn't really close to Hilary actually, he was the corporate Senator From Delaware for 35 years before Obama came along.

So I don't get the Biden love at all. It'd be like Bernie voters yearning for Mark Warner or Claire McCaskill. Berners and other lefties forget his actual record when he had more responsibility than grinning in the background all the time on C-Span.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:48 AM on July 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


stavrogin, I think those are actually a series of pretty good guesses, although too optimistic. I think Manafort will control the business a little better, and Democrats will fumble opportunities, and I don't dare reassure myself there will be a landslide or even a consistent fall for Trump. But, yes, this is melting my brains, I will flat admit it. I wish I could go in for early voting and have myself heavily sedated for Election Day.
posted by Countess Elena at 9:48 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


When 75% of Bernie or Busters LOVE Biden who is practically her idealogical and political clone, but hate her, I'm going to go out on a limb and say some sexism might be the cause.

I actually want to address this a little - I strongly suspect that for most of these people, the issue isn't so much a general sexist attitude, so much as it is an unthinking absorption of anti-Clinton slanders, which have been going around for so long and are so embedded in the culture that people generally don't even bother examining them. The fact that many of those slanders are based in sexism is probably going right over the heads of people who were born after she was already on the national stage, and have no context for it.

Basically - they think she's corrupt because they've been told she's corrupt, and the fact that the 'she's corrupt' meme has its origins in sexist attacks on her character is lost, because on the surface 'corruption' isn't a gendered trait and women can be corrupt.

None of this is to say that these people aren't being assholes, or that they don't have unexamined sexist attitudes of their very own, but I think it's more complex than just directly sexist attitudes on the part of the BoBs.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:49 AM on July 30, 2016 [52 favorites]


[A few comments deleted. We've been around this exact track (debating over anti-Hillary diehards on the left) many times, at this point please stop this go-round and move on to anything else.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:52 AM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


But nah, if Trump wins, it's was the berniebros/left fault, amirite?

If Trump wins, just like when W did, there will be plenty of blame to go around. Voters of every stripe, Hillary, the third parties, the media, the Internet, the weather, we were all here, participants. Oh, if only some county in a swing state hadn't written in "Lizard People" in large numbers. If only reporters italicized every lie Trump told when quoting him. If only there hadn't been a climate change fueled Halloween blizzard that buried the blue counties in Pennsylvania under 2 feet of snow and ice.

Oh, but it's unfair to pin the blame for a national catastrophe on this one little group of people. They were uninformed. They were desperate. They were angry. They were just doing their jobs. If something like this could happen, it must have been inevitable. The important thing now is to focus on the future. Pointing fingers gets us nowhere. Focus on the future.

Trying to find a place to stand where your shoes won't get muddy in the rain won't matter much when the levy breaks.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 9:54 AM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


But why would she lie? It's a great platform. She has a good chance - perhaps the best chance. The best! - for many decades to implement it, and my god would she go down in history if that bet pays off. Plus, unless you really don't believe she has spent her life trying to help people, an awful lot of people would be helped and what else does she want to do?


Maybe she's deceiving because she's secretly in thrall to Big Money?

A saner, more progressive, more equal company is good for Big Money in the long - and even the medium - term. You get a better workforce, you get more options, you get a stronger local economy, you get a better base for exports. It may be impossible to break the psychology of large corporates that their sole reason to exist is to make as much money as possible for themselves, and to lock out regulation and government from tampering with this process, and I'm sure that there will always be Murdochs and Kochs and the other members of the golden reptile house who actually want political power without the tedious business of getting voted for, but that's not the case fo every billionaire or large corporate organisation.

The new economy is aggressively socially liberal - look at the way the techs (and not only the techs) react to state regressive laws. They have an instinctive, 'shareholder value' driven attitude to minimising their taxation exposure, because that's what you do when you're a big corporate, but if you and your competitors are in the same boat then you don't lose competitive advantage if the tax level shifts a bit.

I hope that the top donors - and those who aren't - from Corporate America are being brought on board with this sort of argument - and to be honest, if they don't, then they're going to lose influence after a Clinton victory (and if they're going to be pro-Trump, then good luck to them. It's not as if Clinton is determined to take their toys away - this is not a rabidly anti-corporate platform.

I could be wrong. Clinton could be lying, because she wants to get to the Oval Office to do something other than what she says she wants to do. But I'm damned if I can see what that might be.
posted by Devonian at 9:58 AM on July 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


United States of Extremism
The entirety of the Republican platform is fear, and it is this fear that engenders and empowers psychosis. This is, to be sure, not the first time that it has been suggested that the modern world at large was a source of mental illness. From Deleuze and Guattari’s association of schizophrenia with the structure of capitalist society to the (much weirder and more violent) activities of Wolfgang Huber’s Sozialistisches Patientenkollektiv, the association of madness and the modern order has a considerable lineage. But the idea of a major social institution devoted to the promotion of psychosis as a basis for social organization is, to my mind, novel.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:00 AM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Ya know, I get it, the Hillary hate. I do. Back in '93-'94, when I was in the Navy and fairly conservative in the way new military kids usually (but not always) are, I heard constantly about the new Democratic President and how his wife, the First Lady of the United States, was going to try to push through a Health Care plan that was going to hose up everything. The story being pushed was that an unelected woman was attempting to wear her husband's rank (a story that gets traction pretty easily in the military) and break the healthcare system even as her husband attempted to break 'military cohesion' by allowing openly gay members to serve.

Now here's the thing: once you buy into that story, once you accept it and make it part of your belief system, it is so. fucking. HARD. to let it go, even in the face of contradictory evidence, even when you've accepted that the point of view that allowed you to buy into the story in the first place was flawed. Because it not only means accepting you were wrong, it means accepting you were hoodwinked, and that you helped the process along with your own biases.

Hillary Clinton is a lawyer, and a politician, and many other things, and she is among the best there has ever been of all of them, not in spite of being a woman, but in many cases because she is a woman, and it is a goddamn shame that while she visits with suddenly childless mothers and undocumented workers, the narrative against her has been so effective that most men think of Whitewater, Benghazi or (for chrissakes) a semen-stained dress when her name comes up.

I don't think you have to put Clinton on a pedestal, but it's instructive to try and remember where the story you've got on her comes from.
posted by Mooski at 10:01 AM on July 30, 2016 [93 favorites]


(Re: why is wade into debunking someone's sources for the Hillary stole the election: made up cases of election fraud has been the tool of the right to enforce/justify voter ID laws and delegitimization of leftist candidates in the eyes of the public. Does anyone remember ACORN?)
posted by mrzarquon at 10:02 AM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Elle: Symone Sanders on Life After Bernie and why #sheswithher.: MH: Last time we spoke, you told me about some really frustrating experiences you had on the road that you felt were definitely related to being a woman of color. Do you want to talk a little bit about those?

SS: There were multiple instances. There were places where I literally I couldn't get in. I would go to the door, the staff entrance, and people would say, "This is staff only." I'd have to explain to them that I was staff, and they would question me. I would have to say, "I'm the national press secretary. Did you watch me on the news the other day?" It was consistently happening. There was one week where it happened the entire week.

posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:04 AM on July 30, 2016 [31 favorites]


I was going to write something funny here but I'm not feeling too humorous at the moment. Donald Trump to Father of Fallen Soldier: 'I’ve Made a Lot of Sacrifices'
In his first response to a searing charge from bereaved Army father Khizr Khan that he’d “sacrificed nothing” for his country, Donald Trump claimed that he had in fact sacrificed by employing “thousands and thousands of people.” He also suggested that Khan’s wife didn’t speak because she was forbidden to as a Muslim and questioned whether Khan’s words were his own.

“Who wrote that? Did Hillary's script writers write it?” Trump said in an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard.”
Imagine all the snarky things that I'm thinking now because they are just shrieking in my head but I'm going to refrain from writing them down.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:05 AM on July 30, 2016 [39 favorites]


the (much weirder and more violent) activities of Wolfgang Huber’s Sozialistisches Patientenkollektiv

I feel compelled to point out that the SPK was framed
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:07 AM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


BREAKING: US judge in Wisconsin throws out range of restrictive election laws passed by GOP-led Legislature.

I could feel it in my bones with the NC ruling but when I read this I heard legendary Lakers announcer, the late Chick Hearn yelling, "It's over!"

They know the only way they can keep winning is by suppressing votes, we know the only way they can keep winning is by suppressing votes, and they know we know the only way they can keep winning is by suppressing votes.

They haven't had winning ideas or intentions for a long time. What they had were the keys to the voting booths, and the grown-up finally took their keys away. It will the first time in a while when "Get out the vote" doesn't mean "Get out the vote and hope there's a way to actually vote." It's not about whose message resonates better, the Ds message resonates just fine when compared to the Rs. I think we're going to see record turnout and possible record landslide victory. If we work hard I think it's all going to be rosy-dory.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:12 AM on July 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


Someone at work told me Wikileaks just dumped some State Department emails last night? Is this true? I haven't really the time to research this since I'm at work.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 10:13 AM on July 30, 2016


First it was Donald Trump yesterday, now this morning the RNC criticized "the entire [debate] system."
Trump's primary complaint in his tweet was that two of the debates are scheduled on the same nights as NFL games.

That's true — but it was also true in 2012. Sporting events, religious holidays, and other factors cause scheduling headaches every four years.

The first debate of 2016, slated for September 26, coincides with "Monday Night Football" on ESPN.

The vice presidential debate is scheduled one week later on October 4, a Tuesday.

The second presidential debate, on October 9, coincides with "Sunday Night Football" on NBC.

The final debate is slated for October 19, a Wednesday.

NFL games are played on Sundays, Mondays and Thursdays in the fall. Fridays and Saturdays are effectively ruled out because TV viewing is lower on weekend evenings. That only leaves Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

One complication was Yom Kippur on Tuesday, October 11 and Wednesday, October 12.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:16 AM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


The second presidential debate, on October 9, coincides with "Sunday Night Football" on NBC.

NBC isn't going to show football that night, so it doesn't coincide.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:18 AM on July 30, 2016


What Happened to WikiLeaks?
posted by Artw at 10:18 AM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Someone at work told me Wikileaks just dumped some State Department emails last night? Is this true?

Given that there is no mention of this from CNN, the NY Times, or the Washington Post, or at Google News, I'm going to guess your coworker is either confused about the stories relating to a Clinton campaign database being hacked, or is just straight making shit up.
posted by dersins at 10:19 AM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


It is really possible to be unhappy with Clinton without sexism being the reason.

Hillary Clinton has been getting called a liar, a murderer, a dirty crook on national television with great regularity since 1991 or so. If you're under 40, that means that since you were a child, you've been stewing in a media environment that questions the integrity of this one specific woman. Even if you never bought into any of the individual charges thrown against her, it's hard for me to imagine that this wouldn't lodge in your brain at some point.

I don't necessarily think that all people who have a gut feeling of Hillary as untrustworthy are being sexist, but I do think that many people have been hearing her integrity questioned constantly for 25 years. When you learn something you dislike about her, it gets interpreted as confirmation that she's a slippery fink at her core, because people have been telling you that's the case for 25 years. With an unknown candidate, you're more likely to withhold judgement, to see whether their bad behavior is a one-off, or endemic.

As I've thought more about the weird rootlessness of the suspicions I've felt about Hillary, I've tried to step back and treat her like she's just introducing herself for the first time. I want to allow her to have evolved on issues, and to not be a prisoner of what Rush Limbaugh was telling my great uncle in 1994.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 10:20 AM on July 30, 2016 [67 favorites]


"Pressed by Stephanopoulos to name the sacrifices he’d made for his country, Trump said: “I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I've had tremendous success. I think I've done a lot.”

That's Trump, equating having hired people with having his son die in war. I know, I know, preaching to the converted and all, but I mean, how can this guy be worshipped by so many people?
posted by aspo at 10:22 AM on July 30, 2016 [41 favorites]


What Mooski said, basically.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 10:22 AM on July 30, 2016


The problem with making predictions about Trump's future behavior is that the Law of Conservation of Absurdity (apparently enacted sometime between mid-2015 and early 2016) forces the universe to compensate for any such predictions by making him even more ridiculous and extreme.

Consider: at one point it seemed vaguely plausible that Trump might be preferable to the rest of the Republican field of candidates, because at the very least he was known to have held liberal-friendly positions in the past, and occasionally went out of his way to counter Republican orthodoxy (Planned Parenthood is good; Iraq War was bad, etc.). And then people started in with the "if Trump says X now, why, he'll probably be saying Y in three months," and here we are.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:22 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


There's a story trending now that Assange is waving his dick around, saying he has more. He might. I'm done caring until I see what and why. The guy is basically Milo with more skills.
posted by Countess Elena at 10:23 AM on July 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


What Happened to WikiLeaks?

Short answer: Assange turned out to be the opportunist piece of shit many of us suspected him to be from the outset.
posted by dersins at 10:23 AM on July 30, 2016 [35 favorites]


He's also been trapped inside a tiny little embassy for years at this point and hasn't gotten a breath of fresh air in all that time. I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually driven him a little bit nuts. It would me.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:27 AM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


plus he's there because he's avoiding rape charges. Some rapists have issues with women, I'm sure.
posted by Artw at 10:29 AM on July 30, 2016 [45 favorites]


He's also been trapped inside a tiny little embassy for years at this point

He has not "been trapped," he is in a position almost wholly of his own making.

If he is "trapped" at all, it is that he chose to trap himself because he views that as preferable to defending himself in court against the accusations from which he is hiding.

I have zero sympathy for him.
posted by dersins at 10:33 AM on July 30, 2016 [28 favorites]


He has not "been trapped," he is in a position almost wholly of his own making.

This is semantics. He can be a total monster asshole who got himself into this situation and still be 'trapped,' geez.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:36 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


[Couple comments deleted, let's really not have a Julian Assange referendum in here.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:43 AM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


For those worried about what comes after Trump: I'm worried too, but I'm not worried about a Tom Cotton or whatever. Trump was able to break the rules and win the nomination not just because he tapped into a latent white supremacist authoritarian impulse (though that was surely part of it!) but because his celebrity and access to wealth allowed him to circumvent the normal party vetting process.

Primary candidates usually burn out because they can't, or stop being able to, raise enough money to keep going. So they can't buy ad time, hire field staffers, etc. But Trump was able to float on his initial loan for a long time, and we all know he didn't need ads because his celebrity granted him so much free coverage.

It was reported yesterday (thought it was in this thread but a quick search says no) that the Kochs wouldn't even meet with Trump. Guys like the Kochs "invest" in Republicans because they see them as the best business deals. A populist fascist is not going to be a good business deal for these guys because they rely on the US being able to trade freely with other nations.

I can't believe I'm naming the Koch Brothers as a safeguard for our democracy. Weird, weird times. To be clear, I'm sure they don't actually give a shit about democracy and have vigorously funded efforts to weaken voting rights, etc. But I think actual fascism would be too much of a risk for most guys like that.

*I say "access to wealth" because who knows how much actual wealth Trump has, vs. what he's just borrowed?
posted by lunasol at 10:43 AM on July 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


I am addicted to these threads. Thanks, guys.
posted by maurreen at 10:53 AM on July 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


What could Assange have? The unfair treatment of Bernie by the DNC was damaging, but it's also an old story, unless he somehow connects Clinton herself to it. Maybe some strategy emails about dealing with the Sec. State scandal? Something else entirely?
posted by codacorolla at 10:54 AM on July 30, 2016


[Another few comments deleted. Sorry, this is just not the place to have the fight you want to have, Abelian Grape.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:02 AM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Standing in a very long line to get into the Clinton/Kaine rally here in Pittsburgh right now. We're like three blocks away from the door right now.
posted by octothorpe at 11:02 AM on July 30, 2016 [24 favorites]


Countess Elena I think those are actually a series of pretty good guesses, although too optimistic. I think Manafort will control the business a little better...

As part of the DNC coverage MSNBC's talking heads were questioning why you hadn't seen more of Trump on the campaign trail during the DNC. Nicole Wallace, republican strategist, said that her sources inside the trump camp said that donald trump is a double edged sword. Paraphrasing here but their problem is that if you pull him off the campaign trail to keep him from saying dumb things he gets on Twitter and says dumb things.

I'm not sure how much control Manafort ultimately has over Trump. Donald is clearly calling the shots in his campaign and isn't used to having his decisions or authority questioned. It's got to be like watching your sibling's spoiled rotten children. Their best bet is to send Donald to his room and take away his cellphone.
posted by nathan_teske at 11:06 AM on July 30, 2016


In general, Bernie supporters who are supporting Clinton in the general election can do a better job of convincing Bernie-or-Busters than Clinton supporters can. Since most people who voted for Sanders in the primaries are currently supporting Clinton, most Busters probably know lots of Bernie supporters who are now supporting Clinton. These conversations can happen happen naturally. If you're starting from an assumption that anyone who supported Sanders is a misogynist bigot, and totally dismissive of the economic, social justice and environmental issues they care about, as most Clinton supporters here seem to be, you're probably just going to make people angry.

Bernie said exactly what he needed to say to convince supporters of the importance of voting Dem in November. Obviously some of his supporters still angry that he lost and endorsed Clinton, but hopefully it will sink in and a lot of them will listen.

I'd be surprised if the Clinton campaign isn't already on this. They have access to Sanders' campaign data now. (The campaigns enter their phonebanking and canvassing data into the Party's VAN database. For duration of the campaign, it's available only to the campaign, but after the campaign's over, it's available to other Democratic campaigns.) A first step would survey people who supported Sanders during the primary, get an idea of how many of them are now Busters, what issues are sticking points for them, who seems totally unpersuadable. And then draw up plans for convincing the ones that seem persuadable.

In short, if you've been a Clinton supporter from the get-go and can't fathom why anyone would support any other candidate, it's probably best not to get in arguments on Facebook with Bernie-or-Busters. It's OK to let other people who can be more persuasive do that.
posted by nangar at 11:14 AM on July 30, 2016 [20 favorites]


I am addicted to these threads. Thanks, guys.

i am addicted to these threads. damn it guys.
posted by murphy slaw at 11:18 AM on July 30, 2016 [22 favorites]




christ what an &c.
posted by dersins at 11:21 AM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


One of my favorite things about Khizr Khan is that I suspect he's a Republican. The Politico story said that he's not a registered Democrat and the way he talked about Ryan/McConnell felt really personal-- like he had been betrayed by people he really respected.
posted by acidic at 11:23 AM on July 30, 2016 [34 favorites]


Where Trump's Economic Policies Might Spark Recession, Clinton's Could Boost GDP and Lower Unemployment:
“The upshot of our analysis is that Secretary Clinton’s economic policies, when taken together, will result in a stronger U.S. economy under almost any scenario,” they wrote on Friday. ”The upshot of Mr. Trump’s economic policy positions under almost any scenario is that the U.S. economy will be more isolated and diminished,” they concluded in June.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:23 AM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


Nicole Wallace, republican strategist

I just know she's going to vote for Hillary, I'm just not sure if she will do it publicly.

responding to Khizr Khan: "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."

She has plenty to say and I cannot wait to hear it.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:24 AM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Stephanopoulos was brilliant to ask the yam about Khan. He knows there is no way he can just let a slight like that go. Any sane politician would have said "I have nothing but respect and sympathy for their family, I can't imagine losing a child. I have been fortunate that I've never had to make a sacrifice like that for my country, which is why I now feel like I want to give back." or something similar that is just neutral before pivoting back to safer ground. Instead he implies that Khan is basically abusing his wife and pretends that hiring workers to earn you shitloads of money is somehow equivalent to losing your child.
posted by gatorae at 11:26 AM on July 30, 2016 [62 favorites]


"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."

I would take a bullet for the journalist willing to call Trump a dog-whistling piece of shit for this line.
posted by Mooski at 11:27 AM on July 30, 2016 [25 favorites]


Trump responding to Khizr Khan: "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."

Can we send this quote to every commentator who, for the next 3 months, tells us that Trump is outsmarting the Democrats through his "insurgent strategy"? There's nothing, not one thing, to be gained from attacking the family of a dead veteran, and, possibly more than anything else he's done, illustrates that Trump is simply out of control.
posted by howfar at 11:27 AM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


And, of course, it's so impossibly easy to respond to. If Ghazala Khan chooses to make a short, dignified and sorrowful reply to Trump, what does he do then apart from back off or crank up his bullshit to the next level?
posted by howfar at 11:33 AM on July 30, 2016


You know what? I'm going to go ahead and say that if you are active enough on the Internet to see a bunch of people explain, over and over again, how the literally decades-long campaign to smear Hillary's character and paint her as corrupt was both born in sexism and took full advantage of all the evil fucking tools that sexism has to offer -- that it was and is, in its genesis and in its execution, an expression of a fundamentally misogynist worldview -- and yet you still can tell be bothered to do the basic self-examination and grade-school level googling it would take to debunk that stupid fucking Honduras Coup meme, then at that point you own that sexism. It's yours.

It's you.
posted by schadenfrau at 11:34 AM on July 30, 2016 [82 favorites]


If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.

Maybe something like "Fuck you, Donald Trump"?
But probably not, she seems like a nice lady.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:35 AM on July 30, 2016


If Ghazala Khan chooses to make a short, dignified and sorrowful reply to Trump, what does he do then apart from back off or crank up his bullshit to the next level?

Next level. It's pretty obvious at this point that Donald Trump has multiple personality disorders the least of which is a case of narcissism so bad they might as well rename it Donalidism. He's literally incapable of responding and admitting fault let alone empathizing with the Khans.

It's clear why Captain Kumayun Khan took those ten steps forward and sacrificed himself: his parents are models of courage, dignity, decency. They raised their son well. No one, least of all Donald Trump, should dare attack them.
posted by nathan_teske at 11:39 AM on July 30, 2016 [27 favorites]


Mrs. Khan didn't have to say anything because her side-eye shade against Trump as her husband spoke was magnificent.
posted by TwoStride at 11:40 AM on July 30, 2016 [34 favorites]


She has plenty to say and I cannot wait to hear it.

Her death stare into the camera was pretty loud and clear to me.
posted by PenDevil at 11:41 AM on July 30, 2016 [26 favorites]


If Ghazala Khan chooses to make a short, dignified and sorrowful reply to Trump, what does he do then apart from back off or crank up his bullshit to the next level?

She shouldn't. She already spoke movingly in the Last Word interview, which is probably going to go viral now.
posted by acidic at 11:41 AM on July 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


Janx!
posted by PenDevil at 11:42 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


If you saw the interview with the Khans last night, it turns out that Ghazala Khan has trouble speaking about her son, or even seeing his picture, without crying. Which makes Trump's assertion even more contemptible. She showed incredible strength of character and bravery in even standing there.

Also, I loved what Mr. Khan said about the Republican leaders, because it was turning back a lot of the anti-Muslim rhetoric ("Why are Islamic leaders not shutting extremists down?") right back at them.
posted by carrienation at 11:43 AM on July 30, 2016 [69 favorites]


If Ghazala Khan chooses to make a short, dignified and sorrowful reply to Trump

In the MSNBC interview the next day, she noted that she didn't speak at the convention because she didn't think she could hold herself together. So on the one hand she already sort of did but given the toll it seems to be taking on them I wouldn't be surprised if we've about as much of the Khans as we're going to.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:46 AM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Mrs. Khan looked extremely comfortable standing on the stage and letting her eloquent husband speak for both of them. Not feeling comfortable talking about your dead child on a stage in front of thousands of people and broadcast in front of several million more is far more normal than having the fortitude to do what her husband did.
posted by gatorae at 11:47 AM on July 30, 2016 [27 favorites]


...A high profile Republican will endorse Clinton at the last minute.... I've got ten bucks on Romney.


Romney: It's 'Very Possible' Trump Wins, Clinton Is An 'Awful Candidate'

posted by PenDevil at 11:48 AM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


He would know.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:53 AM on July 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


"Romney said he will still not vote for Trump or Clinton and would write in another Republican's name if he doesn't like the choices of third-party candidates."

Whatever, like someone said in the last thread, that is functionally a half-vote/half-endorsement of Hillary, regardless of his blithering hypotheses of her having an implosion, particularly given that she is running against someone who implodes on a daily basis.
posted by gatorae at 11:53 AM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


In theory I appreciate the idea that I, as a former Bernie supporter & now fully enthusiastic Clinton supporter, have some special powers I could use to bring the Bernie-or-Busters back into the fold. In practice... I'm pretty sure we have literally nothing in common at this point.

I switched teams and made my first donation to Hillary within hours of her becoming the presumptive nominee. Months later I still can't even post something Clinton-positive on Facebook without being deluged with anti-Clinton links of questionable provenance by dudes I don't even know.

The people who are still fighting for Bernie at this point are delusional. They live in a bizarro world that logic cannot penetrate.
posted by the turtle's teeth at 11:55 AM on July 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


Man with the Republicans this year, it's projections of turtles all the way down.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:55 AM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


For anyone who wants to hear Ghazala Khan's words straight from her mouth, here's last night's interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. Her portion starts at about 2:40. But I suggest watching from the beginning, where O'Donnell actually introduces them as "Ghazala Khan and her husband, Khizr Khan," putting the focus on her and her story.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:57 AM on July 30, 2016 [26 favorites]


“To be honest, it’s very possible in my view that Trump wins,” Romney said. “I wouldn’t think it’d be by a landslide, but I think he could win. I think he could lose, I think he could lose by a landslide. But, I don’t know which it’s going to be and a lot of that depends on what happens to Hillary Clinton. Is there a meltdown moment, or some implosion of some kind?”

"Something will happen," Romney stated with confidence. Taking a minute to consider he added, "or maybe it won't."
posted by codacorolla at 12:01 PM on July 30, 2016 [16 favorites]


Maybe a big name like Laura Bush, perhaps her husband as well.

I don't think this sentence would have happened before the last twelve months.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:01 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


There are about a dozen Trump supporters outside the rally and three sad Jill Stein supporters.
posted by octothorpe at 12:02 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


“To be honest, it’s very possible in my view that Trump wins,” Romney said. “I wouldn’t think it’d be by a landslide, but I think he could win. I think he could lose, I think he could lose by a landslide. But, I don’t know which it’s going to be and a lot of that depends on what happens to Hillary Clinton. Is there a meltdown moment, or some implosion of some kind?”

If there was ever a candidate we could rely on to not meltdown during the campaign, that candidate would be Hillary Clinton. Then again the Dean Scream was hardly a meltdown and the media turned it into the thing that sunk his campaign so idk.
posted by dis_integration at 12:06 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]



Donald Trump Is a Republican
:
It is alarming to see one of those parties, half of our political system, being led by a loudmouthed buffoon, a fraud and liar, running openly on a platform of cruelty, fear, self-aggrandizement, xenophobia, and white nationalism.

It is, however, entirely consistent with the party that nominated him. Donald Trump is the product of half a century of Republican strategy and ideology. Republican voters nominated him because he’s what generations of Republicans have been guided by and encouraged to vote for.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:07 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


The odder* quote from the Romney article: “There are serious women leaders who don’t go into an audience and put their arms up in the air and make a big guffaw kind of smile," he said. "It’s almost like she’s acting like she’s Bill Clinton and she’s not Bill Clinton. Nonetheless, it doesn’t come across well.”

*By odder, I mean more blatantly sexist.
posted by snofoam at 12:13 PM on July 30, 2016 [35 favorites]


About that fire marshal: I just asked him if he is a Democrat or a Republican, and he said "Yes."

I like a fire marshal that knows their Boolean algebra.
posted by arcolz at 12:17 PM on July 30, 2016 [64 favorites]


Why America Couldn’t Hear Or See Bernie Protesters During Hillary Clinton’s Speech: Some Sanders delegates were recruited to act as moles, sniffing out plans for demonstrations on various pro-Sanders email and chat threads, the floor captain said. Over GroupMe, a messaging app, alerts went out about what to look for, including rumored plots to disrupt Clinton’s speech by ringing cowbells, throwing toilet paper, blocking doors, and lying down in the aisles of the Wells Fargo Center.
posted by acidic at 12:22 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Throwing toilet paper?
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:27 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I really wish that the introduction to party politics thousands of enthusiastic leftists have gotten wasn't something like that, but you can't really fault the DNC for trying to keep things presentable. You can compare that to Obama supporters, who had their first campaign be a pretty resounding victory. That isn't to say that young people aren't volunteering and supporting Hillary, just that the energy of the Busters seems like it could be uniquely useful for the future of the democratic party, but has likely been soured for at least this campaign, and possibly for a lifetime for some of them.
posted by codacorolla at 12:27 PM on July 30, 2016




Has anyone made a list of the Republicans who (1) have not yet made statements either supporting or denouncing Trump; and (2) are up for re-election?

Seems like that would be a useful letter-writing campaign.
posted by neroli at 12:32 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Why America Couldn’t Hear Or See Bernie Protesters During Hillary Clinton’s Speech

Shorter version: we didn't hear protesters during her speech because there weren't, actually, all that many prospective protesters to begin with (among the actual delegates). None of the specifics in that piece would have mattered if there was, say, overwhelming dissent; most of them boil down to some variation of 'shout if they're shouting, but shout something else' -- that only works if you've got the proportionate numbers to back it up.
posted by cjelli at 12:33 PM on July 30, 2016 [22 favorites]


Remaining Bernie or Bust holdouts are just Trump trolls until they prove otherwise by playing a constructive and supportive role in the progressive movement.
posted by humanfont at 12:41 PM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


including rumored plots to disrupt Clinton’s speech by ringing cowbells,

I thought the cowbells were celebrating. Isn't that how it works everywhere else? Or do they do that at soccer games because they don't like the team and want them to change the rules?
posted by bongo_x at 12:44 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


My sources in the right wing:

The sane ones are trying to decide. They can't stomach Trump but they're scared of Hillary appointing SC justices and a completely left wing court for decades. They liked the general's speech during the DNC, they liked the Republican endorsements, they liked the attack on the gun lobby. They're concerned about the possibility of Putin involvement with Trump. Their best case scenario for a Trump win is that the vice president does everything. The thought of Trump actually being actual president for real is terrifying to them. The more they actually are exposed to trump the more nauseous their facial expression at the thought of voting for him.

So the ones leaning towards voting Trump anyway can be leaned on to write in someone, and the ones leaning towards writing in can be leaned on to vote Hillary.

The insane ones think Obama is a Secret Muslim and are basically a lost cause. Trump is perfect and wonderful and exactly what this country needs, and Hillary is evil personified. The only thing that would change their vote is incontrovertible proof Trump is a Putin puppet. They definitely hate Russia more than they hate Clinton. (although I know some trump internet supporters are big putin fans, so in that, my sample is not necessarily perfectly representative. On the other hand, some trump internet supporters are probably paid Russian trolls so of course they like Putin)
posted by Cozybee at 12:47 PM on July 30, 2016 [20 favorites]


One of my favorite things about Khizr Khan is that I suspect he's a Republican. The Politico story said that he's not a registered Democrat and the way he talked about Ryan/McConnell felt really personal-- like he had been betrayed by people he really respected.

Before 9/11, non-African American Muslims were reliably Republican voters. A small government, low tax, small business friendly, socially conservative party was a natural fit for many of them. And then that all went away fast.

More than 80% voted for Bush in 2000, but only 4% did in 2004.
posted by zachlipton at 12:50 PM on July 30, 2016 [57 favorites]


I've come up with an equation to determine how much of one's dislike of Hillary Clinton is attributable to unconscious bias and the internalization of years of Republican slander.

D*HRC - D*AG = S

That is: your dislike of Hillary Clinton minus your dislike of Al Gore is the the amount of unconscious sexism influencing your feelings toward her.

You can sub in any of a number of politicians for Al Gore, including John Kerry, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 12:50 PM on July 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


Maybe a big name like Laura Bush, perhaps her husband as well.

I don't think this sentence would have happened before the last twelve months.

They honest to god don't believe her, that she's just saying whatever she needs to in order to get elected.

OK, sure. Let Hillary Clinton say on stage that Irish infants are by all accounts the tastiest of babies, let her leak the blueprints for the new gloriously insurmountable wall to be erected between the states of Iowa and Wisconsin, whatever.

Just have her run up the highest fucking possible score ever against the (possibly unwitting) champion of the white nationalists / fascists that her campaign can possibly run up, without actually breaking any election laws.

This is not red v. blue and I am fine with corb-type conservatives in the Democratic Party, and all the political-nerd-behind-the-scenes hullabaloo that causes (and all the white college junior male whatever-they-are busters) being on side, as long as this side is the winning-ist.

Solidarity, now.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:51 PM on July 30, 2016 [17 favorites]


The most vehement Bernie or Buster I know right now is a co-worker who shares posts from Lee Camp, a comedian with a show on RT right now. I do not think I am going to reach her, but fortunately we do not live in a swing state. I did post the Noam Chomsky video someone linked above, so thanks for that.

Otherwise I'm just going to lay low on Facebook politics for a little while.
posted by maggiemaggie at 12:57 PM on July 30, 2016


you still can tell be bothered to do the basic self-examination and grade-school level googling it would take to debunk that stupid fucking Honduras Coup meme,

Which part of the Honduran Coup do you consider a "meme"?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:04 PM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Here’s what happened to that giant balloon Bill Clinton carried off-stage in Philadelphia

Spoiler: he gave it to his granddaughter Charlotte
posted by zachlipton at 1:04 PM on July 30, 2016 [27 favorites]


Which part of the Honduran Coup do you consider a "meme"?

I mean, I'm just kinda spitballing here, but, perhaps the idea that responsibility for it should be laid primarily or even entirely at Clinton's feet, which memetic contagion appears to have spread through much if not most of the Buster left?
posted by dersins at 1:26 PM on July 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


(Just a guess.)
posted by dersins at 1:27 PM on July 30, 2016


The Republicans cannot overreach - "Failing that, of course, political commentators and journalists reflexively return to the idea that the two parties, which should agree in all things, are at least in agreement as to their faults. If “both sides” were not of the same moral caliber, evincing the same degree of corruption, dishonesty, ignorance, and other undesirable traits, then that would call into question the legitimacy of one of the two sides and forever close down the possibility of bipartisan consensus. It would open up the possibility of permanent political division, rather than momentary disagreement between people of good faith whose different starting points ultimately enrich our great national dialogue, etc., etc., etc."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:28 PM on July 30, 2016




From a few months ago, a humor piece: Here's a Glimpse at What President Trump's First 100 Minutes in Office Might Look Like

If it's anything other than a GIF of a mushroom cloud, the writer probably worked too hard.
posted by infinitywaltz at 1:31 PM on July 30, 2016 [17 favorites]


I'm looking for rebuttals to "voting your conscience" and protest-voting and opting out of the election - anything anyone can provide would be super helpful

I'm just going to point out, very gently, whether you believe generally in "voting your conscience" or not, that this is going to be a huge thing this election and I don't think most of it is going to be on the Democrat side. I think most of it is going to be people who have been voting in lockstep for Republicans since 1974, who are becoming emboldened that it is the only moral thing to do.

Democrats have always been tempted towards the third party. For the amount of Republicans to be talking about Gary Johnson as there are, it is a sea change if it can continue.

And you just plain can't get some people to vote for Hillary. You can't. Some people would rather be burned at the stake than vote Hillary. But if their vote WAS going to be Republican, then them not voting Republican is good enough. My Republican-all-his-life dad in PA is not going to vote for Hillary no matter what I say or do. But I am going to be visiting him, and talking in person about all the stuff I personally experienced from the Trump camp, and I'll be talking to him about Johnson.

Most people don't truly have a liberals-only echo chamber. There's friends, there's family. And so if you spend your time talking about how shitty conscience voting is, aiming it at your lefty friends, there's a good change your right-of-center friends will be hearing it too. And this is the election we can't afford for Republicans to hold their nose and vote the party.
posted by corb at 1:35 PM on July 30, 2016 [41 favorites]


I always vote my conscience, but I'm a person who strongly values harm reduction.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:36 PM on July 30, 2016 [40 favorites]


Any progressive who believes their conscience is telling them something other than "DEFEAT TRUMP AT ALL COSTS" may be working with a flawed understanding of "conscience."

Or "progressive."
posted by dersins at 1:41 PM on July 30, 2016 [25 favorites]


If you need a (really) good laugh, please watch this version of Trump's recent speech.
posted by AFABulous at 1:43 PM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Instead, let's contemplate how Black Women's Emotional Labor Saved the DNC.

From that link:

As Monica Dennis, Regional Co-Coordinator of Black Lives Matter NYC pointed out on her FB page: "Donna Brazile and Marcia Fudge cleaned up a mess they did not create. First Lady Michelle Obama delivered a flawless speech, silencing her haters, shading the RNC candidate while wearing a bulletproof vest. Sen. Corey Booker invoked Dr. Maya Angelou to signal that he is next in line. Black women bear the reality and weight that we are instrumental in keeping Trump out of the White House. And all of this, without a bold mention of Fannie Lou Hamer, Shirley Chisholm or Barbara Jordan who revolutionized U.S. politics."

So, I love this message. But also, check out what we did hear on Hamer, Chisholm, and Jordan:

Here's Shirley Franklin, Mayor of Atlanta, on Fannie Lou Hamer.
Here's former South Carolina Rep. Bakari Sellers on Hamer and Shirley Chisholm.
Here's Lovely Warren, Mayor of Rochester, NY, on Chisholm at the New York delegation breakfast.
Here's Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee on Barbara Jordan.

Not to mention Al Sharpton and Meryl Streep and the delegate from the great state of Mississippi.

No real point here (and certainly no disagreement with the article!) -- just that when you scratch below the surface of the top-line speakers, there is so much more awesome to uncover.
posted by john hadron collider at 1:43 PM on July 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


Yeah, as much as I loved that piece, that line definitely stood out as odd to me. I didn't watch anywhere close to all of the speeches--well under 25% of them, for sure--but even so I definitely heard multiple mentions of both Hamer and Chisholm.
posted by dersins at 1:49 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


I mean, I'm just kinda spitballing here, but, perhaps the idea that responsibility for it should be laid primarily or even entirely at Clinton's feet, which memetic contagion appears to have spread through much if not most of the Buster left?

I mean, uhh, we're supposed to judge people on their records. The role of the Secretary of State in legitimizing the coup in Honduras and aiding and abetting the current, right-wing regime, is just a fact. There is no amount of googling that will magically make the facts disappear. And it's kind of one of the lesser sins in the long history of US support of Latin American dictatorships. It's absurd to say that it's a meme. It's just true. As people say, it's not my job to educate you on the facts here, they're pretty much out in the open.
posted by dis_integration at 1:50 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah, I was about to say, I know I heard shoutouts to Jordan and Chisholm at least, so that part of the complaint seemed kind of odd.
posted by tavella at 1:50 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've heard from a few people complaints about how the DNC was just politicians trying to sound like people and given how many regular folks were up there- people whose lives have been touched by tragedy and success, people who are often on the sharp end of politics- I just assume they didn't actually watch the damned thing.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:51 PM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


If Clinton wins VA and it's quite likely it will be on the strength of the coastal population centers.

Well when you remove the three major population centers you're left with only 30% of the voters in the whole state. This writeup in anticipation of the 2013 governor's race - which TMcA won - shows just how few districts Creigh Deeds won in the 2009 race, yet still pulled over 41% of the vote. You barely have any blue there. Look at the 2005 map for Tim Kaine's victory and you see that even a 6% spread is mostly red by land mass. Kaine got some spots over to the west - which maybe will make you feel better - but the real spread was because of the cities to the east.

Kaine's map should make you feel better; he grabbed Loudoun and Prince William. I think odds are good he will help Clinton get even more of those spots as well. Arlington and Alexandria are basically a gimmie.

Not a reason to be complacent, but this is a good reason not to panic.
posted by phearlez at 1:51 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


The role of the Secretary of State in legitimizing the coup in Honduras and aiding and abetting the current, right-wing regime, is just a fact.

Am I really in the minority in this world in thinking that the Secretary of State primarily carries the water the President orders them to? I would certainly feel comfortable assuming that anyone who takes that job it's in too radical a disagreement with the big kahuna's policies, and questions of competence certainly are fair, but I always just assume that if I have a gripe with policy coming out of that position that it was the President's choice.
posted by phearlez at 1:54 PM on July 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


The role of the Secretary of State in legitimizing the coup in Honduras and aiding and abetting the current, right-wing regime, is just a fact.

Look at those goal posts go!
posted by schadenfrau at 1:56 PM on July 30, 2016 [24 favorites]


Josh Marshall: How And Why Trump Will Try to Ditch the Debates
posted by homunculus at 2:11 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Pope Guilty, I heard something similar to that just an hour ago from a friend of mine, and it turned out she'd tried to watch it on PBS. I was floundering around a little the first day of the DNC and the first stream I found kept cutting out, so I'd switch back to PBS and every time it'd be Shields and Brooks mammering on endlessly with the actual convention appearing all fuzzy and tiny and muffled in the distant background. It was enraging. The difference between the actual live conventions and the bowdlerized conventions is huge.
posted by Don Pepino at 2:11 PM on July 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


Where Trump's Economic Policies Might Spark Recession, Clinton's Could Boost GDP and Lower Unemployment

Economic predictions have to see if the GOP retains control of Congress.

This produces a 4-way future not a binary one:

1) Clinton wins, GOP control: utter, utter shitshow through to 2018.

2) Clinton wins, Dems regain control: yeay (?)

3) Trump wins, GOP control: tax cuts for everyone, deficit spending, maybe the Fed cajoled into MMTism to get the boom going for Republicans (AFAICT the Fed is largely a pro-conservative institution)

4) Trump wins, Dems regain control: impossible
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 2:14 PM on July 30, 2016


Sandy Levinson, Balkinization: A Weberian take on the 2016 Republican nominee - "Folks, this is where we are in our contemporary political situation. But, as Weber suggested almost a century, Trumpism may be a dangerous virus located in the DNA of the American constitutional order and its ever-greater valorization of presidents as maximum leaders with grandiose visions they have "mandates" to implement, whatever it takes. "
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:15 PM on July 30, 2016


4) Trump wins, Dems regain control: impossible

Depends on the level of control. If it's simply <50 senate seats instead of <40 they might try to filibuster but we'll see the nuclear option used on the first week.

Also, I don't see a scenario where Trump wins but Rs fail to keep the Senate. It would literally involve Democrats turning out in record numbers to vote D but not vote Hillary.
posted by Talez at 2:16 PM on July 30, 2016


And it's kind of one of the lesser sins in the long history of US support of Latin American dictatorships.

And yet, suddenly this election cycle it's being foregrounded.

Why might that be?
posted by dersins at 2:17 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Heywood Mogroot III: Where Trump's Economic Policies Might Spark Recession, Clinton's Could Boost GDP and Lower Unemployment Economic predictions have to see if the GOP retains control of Congress. This produces a 4-way future not a binary one

TFA explains that Moody tested multiple scenarios for both candidates:

- all platform policies pass;
- compromises are required with Congress;
- obstructionist Congress.

Clinton's plan is found to be superior to Trump's for the economy in all three scenarios.
posted by Superplin at 2:17 PM on July 30, 2016 [17 favorites]


And yet, suddenly this election cycle it's being foregrounded.

I dunno, the left has made a fuss about the Monroe doctrine and the horrors of US involvement in latin america for decades. I was out at Fort Benning protesting the School of the Americas in the 00's. This issue hasn't changed. If anything we shifted the goalposts for Obama because we all believed he would do better. Maybe he is with the Cuba rapprochement, we'll see what happens with that. I blame him as well.
posted by dis_integration at 2:19 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


What I'd really like to see is the senate history between 2005 and 2008 for Obama, Clinton, and Sanders, when all three worked in the senate together

Specifically calculating:
Number of bills authored
Number of bills co-authored
Number of bills sponsored
Number of bills co-sponsored

Then a breakdown of how many of those bills had bipartisan support, and which ones Obama, Clinton, and Sanders had supported / voted on.

Because from my cursory view, Sanders has had little success getting few if any of this policies to have traction on the senate floor, but I don't have the numbers to back up that suspicion.
posted by mrzarquon at 2:20 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


A friend's telling me the polls are at 50-50 again. Say it ain't so?
posted by peacheater at 2:23 PM on July 30, 2016


Which polls exactly?
posted by tzikeh at 2:24 PM on July 30, 2016


It ain't.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:24 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


It is really possible to be unhappy with Clinton without sexism being the reason.

It sure must be because I have yet to hear anyone come right out and say "I don't like Hillary because I am sexist!".
posted by srboisvert at 2:26 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Specifically calculating:
Number of bills authored
Number of bills co-authored
Number of bills sponsored
Number of bills co-sponsored


The thing is, despite folks of all stripes--left, right and centrist--using this kind of information as a sort of "gotcha" against their political opponents, the vast majority of actual, really hard work done by an individual legislator isn't captured by those numbers.
posted by dersins at 2:28 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh I think he means the 538 polls only model.
posted by peacheater at 2:28 PM on July 30, 2016


It sure must be because I have yet to hear anyone come right out and say "I don't like Hillary because I am sexist!".

That is basically the platform of /r/the_donald, actually.
posted by dis_integration at 2:32 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


A friend's telling me the polls are at 50-50 again. Say it ain't so?

Nate's currently got his now-cast and his forecast moving in opposite directions. Hm. Maybe that makes sense?
posted by howfar at 2:32 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, Honduras does become interesting in light of Kaine's experience there, and it would certainly be fascinating to get a more nuanced take on it from him/about him (so far much of the narrative seems to limited to excitement at the fact that he speaks Spanish); certainly Greg Grandin's article, "Eat, Pray, Starve: What Tim Kaine Didn't Learn During His Time in Honduras is a very different look at the issue.
posted by TwoStride at 2:36 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


A friend's telling me the polls are at 50-50 again.

Your friend needs to sit tight. Right now I think there's just one fully post-DNC poll, from a relatively new pollster (538 considers them a B+ I think). Don't expect to see fully post-DNC polls really registering until Tuesday/Wednesday. That's when the "bounce" articles will start appearing.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 2:37 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm following Sam Wang rather than Nate Silver - slightly more reliable historically and not as sensationalist. And hasn't disappeared into his own cult of personality. Sam Wang seems to be predicting that a 2 point swing in Trump's favour by election day still gives the Electoral College to Clinton.
posted by Francis at 2:44 PM on July 30, 2016 [16 favorites]


I'm following Sam Wang rather than Nate Silver

+1 Was just about to post the same thing.
posted by chris24 at 2:48 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


The NYT has an inside look at the trump campaign. Although it's a campaign only in a very loose sense. Big points are a serious lack of funds, the Koch brothers repudiating advances from the campaign (and trump tweeted that he turned them down!), and a path forward that really only includes a sweep of the three biggest swing states. Of course that means that trump has to do what no republican nominee has done in years: take PA. I personally think he could do it, because of rural PA's distressed status as a former manufacturing base that's been embarrassed by a global economy, but I think it's an exceedingly long shot that needs to fire along three other nearly equally or even longer shots.

This is largely because trump's vile rhetoric has alienated women and minorities who would otherwise be persuaded to pull the R lever in places like Colorado and Virginia. In that light, Kaine (both for sealing in VA's votes, and for his general moderate appeal) seems to have been a canny choice from Clinton. NC is also worrying, since it might potentially swing this year - especially due to the recent judicial victory striking down its voter disenfranchisement laws.

Among all of that, the campaign doesn't have the money to match Clinton on advertising, and are going to be using trump's fame to focus on a "small number of [key] targets" with his messaging about trade deals, terrorism scares, and immigration race baiting. Ads that do air are going to be focused on FLA, OH and PA. So, essentially, it appears as though trump has given up on actually fighting the election in any states except for the ones he needs for his shoot the moon strategy. Strategists were hoping that bringing Pence on board would alleviate most of these problems, but of course we see how that worked out.

Still a lot of time left until the election though. I would imagine that part of the unstated strategy is digging up something to Swiftboat Clinton with, and I'd imagine that useful idiot Assange is only too willing to provide. At the moment, however, the electoral map looks very bleak for trump.
posted by codacorolla at 2:49 PM on July 30, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'm following Sam Wang rather than Nate Silver - slightly more reliable historically and not as sensationalist. And hasn't disappeared into his own cult of personality. Sam Wang seems to be predicting that a 2 point swing in Trump's favour by election day still gives the Electoral College to Clinton.

Sam Wang's actually predicting a 3.3% swing is required to make the race even. That's the "meta-margin" top right on his homepage.

538 has reverted to traditional punditry, in effect. Lots of noise (ergo lots of headlines), not a lot of signal. Also, Silver's modelling always seems much less confident than it should be. It seems to assign much lower probabilities to certain outcomes than are realistic, but is still praised for calling a race "correctly". No. If you say that x has a 70% chance of happening in 10 places, and it happens in all of them, you did not call it correctly. You almost certainly massively understated the probability of x.
posted by howfar at 2:55 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Hillary Clinton, on Facebook:

I was very moved to see Ghazala Khan stand bravely and with dignity in support of her son on Thursday night. And I was very moved to hear her speak last night, bravely and with dignity, about her son's life and the ultimate sacrifice he made for his country.

This is a time for all Americans to stand with the Khans, and with all the families whose children have died in service to our country. And this is a time to honor the sacrifice of Captain Khan and all the fallen. Captain Khan and his family represent the best of America, and we salute them
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:57 PM on July 30, 2016 [31 favorites]


If you say that x has a 70% chance of happening in 10 places, and it happens in all of them, you did not call it correctly. You almost certainly massively understated the probability of x.
Whatever your opinion of fivethirtyeight and their model, they understand this (search for calibration).
posted by dfan at 3:00 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also, maybe this is getting too nit-picky, but it's perfectly plausible for ten 70% predictions to all come true, if they are correlated.
posted by dfan at 3:02 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


And yet, suddenly this election cycle it's being foregrounded.

Why might that be?


It reentered the news cycle after Berta Cáceres was murdered back in March.
posted by homunculus at 3:07 PM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Whatever your opinion of fivethirtyeight and their model, they understand this (search for calibration).

Oh, absolutely, it's not actually them I'm talking about, on that point, but rather the reaction to them. We will have to see, once the results come in, whether the model is better calibrated than last time. Silver himself noted some calibration problems with his forecast after 2012, and he hasn't done amazingly well at political prediction since then, but we'll see. They're definitely trying, but I don't know if their model is really all it's cracked up to be. We need a lot more data, somewhat ironically.
posted by howfar at 3:07 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Greg Grandin's other columns include claiming that there is nothing UnAmerican about Donald Trump and another defending Donald Trump's praise of Saddam. Why he has been given a column in what was historically one of America's leading progressive magazines is something to ponder.
posted by humanfont at 3:08 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm trying to remember all the time I spent in 2008 and 2012 sweating over day to day poll swings and shifting red and blue chunks of the electoral map, and to contrast that memory with the relatively swift and undramatic election days that followed. I certainly don't always succeed, but my goal for this election year is to keep a closer eye on campaign organization and fundamentals, rather than the latest reading of the tea leaves.
posted by EatTheWeak at 3:11 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


howfar: "Silver himself noted some calibration problems with his forecast after 2012, and he hasn't done amazingly well at political prediction since then, but we'll see."

E.g. this 2012 election post-mortem.
posted by crazy with stars at 3:14 PM on July 30, 2016


Greg Grandin's other columns include claiming that there is nothing UnAmerican about Donald Trump and another defending Donald Trump's praise of Saddam. Why he has been given a column in what was historically one of America's leading progressive magazines is something to ponder.

Those are pretty hot takes on thoughtful articles written by a history professor. The first amounts to something that's been repeated over and over again: that Donald Trump embodies a particularly nasty strain in American political life, one as old as the Puritans. The other compares attitudes US foreign policy takes towards Hussein with those we take towards Latin American dictators who we regard as friends, great people, wonderful allies, as they unleash death squads on their opponents and we do nothing. I mean do you actually have rebuttals of those articles or do you just think that if you frame the article's theses in the right light you can dismiss its arguments entirely? Are we giving up on thoughtful criticism because we want to unify behind a political candidate now?
posted by dis_integration at 3:15 PM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


The Khan speech and media tour seem to be having an effect, it's the most viral thing to come out of either convention at least in my world. I have heard from both liberal and conservative friends about it and seen multiple posts on social media.

One example is a friend of mine, son of immigrants whose father served (and got citizenship) in the Navy. He was anti-Trump but not a Hillary supporter at all, and his family are conservative Republicans, religious Catholics who don't like Trump but were apparently really against Hillary. According to him, that speech united the entire family behind the Democrats this time out, and feel it's their duty to vote against Trump now.
posted by cell divide at 3:18 PM on July 30, 2016 [48 favorites]


Those are pretty hot takes on thoughtful articles written by a history professor.

Really? Because it seems barely even tepid to state that a piece of writing "claim[s] that there is nothing UnAmerican about Donald Trump" when the actual title of said piece of writing is "There’s Nothing Un-American About Donald Trump."
posted by dersins at 3:24 PM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


> Well, Honduras does become interesting in light of Kaine's experience there, and it would certainly be fascinating to get a more nuanced take on it from him/about him (so far much of the narrative seems to limited to excitement at the fact that he speaks Spanish); certainly Greg Grandin's article, "Eat, Pray, Starve: What Tim Kaine Didn't Learn During His Time in Honduras is a very different look at the issue.

Grandin was on Democracy Now yesterday: "Eat, Pray, Starve": Greg Grandin on Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton & the U.S. Role in Honduras

> Greg Grandin's other columns include... defending Donald Trump's praise of Saddam.

He wasn't really defending it, he was commenting on its consistency with our record of supporting strongmen. Here's the piece:

Donald Trump’s Praise of Saddam Hussein, in Context: Behind Trump’s comments are 100 years of American-backed dictatorships.
posted by homunculus at 3:25 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Really? Because it seems barely even tepid to state that a piece of writing "claim[s] that there is nothing UnAmerican about Donald Trump" when the actual title of said piece of writing is "There’s Nothing Un-American About Donald Trump."

Obviously the hot take there is the framing, the implication that such a statement is so absurd that it should disqualify Grandin from being a contributor to The Nation. It's in bad faith.
posted by dis_integration at 3:28 PM on July 30, 2016


If Trump tries to weasel out of the debates Clinton would simply show up and get two hours of free primetime national television answering questions however she wants and attacking Trump relentlessly. That's why there's no chance he doesn't show.
posted by Justinian at 3:29 PM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


If Trump tries to weasel out of the debates Clinton would simply show up and get two hours of free primetime national television answering questions however she wants and attacking Trump relentlessly.

You know what would be even better?

Clinton spends two hours on national TV listening to things that are wrong, empathise with people and tell them her solution.
posted by Talez at 3:33 PM on July 30, 2016 [37 favorites]


. . . That's why there's no chance he doesn't show.

I will never underestimate the man's ability to create an alternate reality in which his actions are completely justified, and act accordingly. Members of his base are following him through these last appalling comments, inventing reasons that it was okay to insult Khan, and they'd follow him to an alternate broadcast on debate night where someone lobs softballs at him while he sits in his golden chair.
posted by Countess Elena at 3:35 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump is laying the groundwork for skipping the debates.

The prospect of watching Clinton utterly emasculate Trump on live television is the only thing that's kept me going through his entire candidacy.

I have nearly a year of pent-up rage that is only barely being kept in check now by the promise of that outlet. If it doesn't happen, everything will burn, starting with him and all he holds dear. EVERYTHING.
posted by schroedinger at 3:37 PM on July 30, 2016 [44 favorites]


The prospect of watching Clinton utterly emasculate Trump on live television is the only thing that's kept me going through his entire candidacy.

The prospect of him not showing up and giving Ms. Clinton free airtime is better.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:40 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump has never been above 43% on the poll averages. His base, a combo of Trumpsters and partisans, isn't enough to win. He has to convince 10% more of the electorate and those people do care about debates, the Khans, Russia hacks, etc. Who cares what he can convince his nutjobs of? They're a landslide loss minority.
posted by chris24 at 3:40 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


If Clinton goes on TV and fills the entire debate slot just talking to the moderator, I guarantee that ol' Trumpy will go MST3K on her from Twitter. Which I guess could be an interesting model: Clinton talking, Trump snarking it up online, and the moderator pulling occasional Trump lines and letting Clinton respond to them live.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 3:41 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


His base, a combo of Trumpsters and partisans, isn't enough to win.

His base isn't enough to win if Clinton's coalition comes out to vote. Trump's ceiling is lower but motivated. So the key is getting people to the polls.
posted by Justinian at 3:42 PM on July 30, 2016 [17 favorites]


> Where Trump's Economic Policies Might Spark Recession, Clinton's Could Boost GDP and Lower Unemployment:

Wayback link for those who don't feel like tweaking their ad blockers.
posted by homunculus at 3:42 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Same, schroedinger. I also deeply desire to embark on an all out campaign of psychological warfare against Trump, because frankly, it seems like it should be easy to goad him into a full-on breakdown on air, and I want Hillary and her surrogates to do it. It was a good start getting Bloomberg to attack him, and Trump predictably took the bait. I want them to push harder. Compared to Hillary and the shit she's survived, Trump is downright fragile. I want that fragile ego destroyed.

Should I be better than this petty desire? Probably. But right now Trump is the malignant symbol of every privileged white man I and every other woman have had to endure all our lives, and I'm so fucking sick of it.
posted by yasaman at 3:43 PM on July 30, 2016 [73 favorites]


I'm also not so sure the debates would go well for Hillary. She's excellent, but surely she's only ever debated rational actors. His constant vicious insults and Gish Galloping might literally overtake her. Imagine debating the entire white male id of a country, incarnate . . .
posted by Countess Elena at 3:45 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am a little pleased by the idea of the nation getting to see what a narcissistic rage meltdown looks like, live on every network.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:46 PM on July 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


I don't know. She handled the Benghazi hearings like the pro that she is, and while that wasn't quite Trumpian levels of loopiness, it was pretty unhinged.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:47 PM on July 30, 2016 [35 favorites]


While Clinton is a lot like Leslie Knope, she's a vastly more competent debater. Leslie Knope's plans and energy + Hermione Granger's self-control.
posted by stolyarova at 3:47 PM on July 30, 2016 [19 favorites]


I also deeply desire to embark on an all out campaign of psychological warfare against Drumpf, because frankly, it seems like it should be easy to goad him into a full-on breakdown on air

Somewhere in the daily convention threads, someone floated the idea of just mailing Trump box after box of tiny gloves and mittens. That idea appeals to me a great deal, but I don't have a line on tiny gloves or mittens in bulk.
posted by EatTheWeak at 3:48 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I say again: Let's get together and send him masses of XXXXL gloves with the tags removed. Underwear that's super baggy in the crotch.
posted by stolyarova at 3:48 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Tiny gloves will just confirm to him that he has enormous hands by comparison.
posted by stolyarova at 3:48 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'd hope the Clinton campaign has got some decent psychologists advising on Trump's fairly evident patologies. Or is that unethical?
posted by Devonian at 3:52 PM on July 30, 2016


Should I be better than this petty desire? Probably.

I feel no shame over the urge to see him trampled into a mewling, psychotic mess.
posted by schroedinger at 3:52 PM on July 30, 2016 [17 favorites]


There are three debates scheduled that will include Trump. I imagine that she'll play it pretty straight for the first one and let Trump be Trump and see what happens. If he poll numbers shoot up, I'd expect more of the same for the rest. If not, she can always goad him into a breakdown later.
posted by VTX at 3:52 PM on July 30, 2016


The NYT has an inside look at the trump campaign:
It now looks exceedingly difficult for [Trump] to assemble even the barest Electoral College majority without beating Hillary Clinton in a trifecta of the biggest swing states: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
...
...his most plausible route to the presidency, and perhaps his only realistic victory scenario, involves capturing all three of the biggest electoral prizes on the map, and keeping North Carolina in the Republican column.
...
Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, a longtime political ally of the Clintons, said that Mrs. Clinton could effectively throttle the Trump campaign by winning Virginia, where he is confident of her standing, and one other swing state. He named Florida as the most inviting option.

“If you put a combination together of Florida and Virginia, it’s virtually impossible for Republicans to win the presidency,” Mr. McAuliffe said. “Electoral College-wise, we are in a very strong position today.”
The New York Times' current polls: Florida (Clinton +1.3), Ohio (Clinton +0.2), Pennsylvania (Clinton +3.6), and North Carolina (Clinton +2.4). The trend lines look dicey for Clinton in Ohio but she's maintaining a fairly steady lead in the other three states. He'll have to take three out of four to win.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:55 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Huh? Mark Cuban is speaking at the rally before Hillary, didn't expect that.
posted by octothorpe at 3:56 PM on July 30, 2016


I want Trump to receive fake security briefings that include Real Facts like:

Mark Cuban is an actual Cuban

Dick Cheney let the dogs out

Paris Hilton is a secret Russian spy

posted by stolyarova at 4:01 PM on July 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


Bat Boy is real and is kept in a cryogenic storage tank at Area 51 alongside Eisenhower's head
posted by stolyarova at 4:02 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


> Mark Cuban is an actual Cuban

No seriously, through an act of modern gastronomy, he's a full blown Cuban.
posted by mrzarquon at 4:02 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


He's barely mentioned Hillary and is just talking about himself.
posted by octothorpe at 4:02 PM on July 30, 2016


Let's get together and send him masses of XXXXL gloves with the tags removed.

Ah! Yes, that was it. I'm picturing it working the same way as all those dildos and gummy penises getting sent to those Bundy boy Ranch Stupidians squatting Malheur. Picture Trump on his webcam, desk buried under heaps of gloves that he can't fill, yelling and turning redder and redder shades of orange. Then he tries to shove them all on the ground in disgust but it takes, like, a really long time.
posted by EatTheWeak at 4:03 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's because Mark Cuban is a less toxic Donald Trump. Same narcissism.
posted by Justinian at 4:03 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]




Given how the Trump AMA went, I'm betting on the prez tv debate being between HRC and an actual yam she brought into the studio herself.
posted by Devonian at 4:04 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Omg box I love that this is a thing. Thank you!
posted by stolyarova at 4:05 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Talking about himself is exactly what Mark Cuban should do. He's fighting billionaire bluster with better billionaire bluster.
posted by acidic at 4:06 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


While I know that Cuban is attempting to be on the right side of history here and I don't want to be uncharitable, is there something about being a billionaire that turns your skin into orange rubber?
posted by stolyarova at 4:08 PM on July 30, 2016


Okay, he did just call Trump a jaggoff so all is forgiven.
posted by octothorpe at 4:08 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


While I know that Cuban is attempting to be on the right side of history here and I don't want to be uncharitable, is there something about being a billionaire that turns your skin into orange rubber?

Fake tans.
posted by Talez at 4:09 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Set up the "debate" in game show format. Several topics the candidates can choose from, and the challenge is: who can talk about {subject} the longest without making it about themselves. Timer running on the screen.
posted by LobsterMitten at 4:10 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


If he poll numbers shoot up, I'd expect more of the same for the rest. If not, she can always goad him into a breakdown later.

Frankly, I don't think she has to do anything to goad him beyond showing up, knowing her shit, and being presidential. He was terrified of Megyn Kelly.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 4:10 PM on July 30, 2016 [16 favorites]


Before 9/11, non-African American Muslims were reliably Republican voters. A small government, low tax, small business friendly, socially conservative party was a natural fit for many of them. And then that all went away fast.

Just wanted to mention this from a personal perspective...

Tulsa has a sizable population of people from the Middle East and Iran. And they were always, always, going on about how much they LOVED America and how much they LOVED Reagan. Even before 9/11 there was a certain hostility towards "furriners" and the best way to counter it was to wrap yourself in as many American flags as possible.

This was true not only of Muslims but of Christians as well, especially Lebanese Christians.

Since 9/11 it's only gotten worse down there. There's now a CAIR chapter, in fact. Locals protested the Veterans Day parade because Muslim veterans dare march in it.

I hope the Khan's message got through some thick skulls down there, but I doubt it.
posted by dw at 4:15 PM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


So, assuming a full blown meltdown that nobody is able to reasonably defend (and I mean in this scenario where nobody does defend it), what exactly does that look like? The RNC official rules allow them to throw another name in, but there's deadlines, right?

I guess what I'm saying is haven't we reached go-nogo velocity on this already?

Looked at another way, assume Trump suffers a heart attack and dies. What happens?
posted by odinsdream at 4:15 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think in either case, if Trump dies or ragequits, Pence steps in.

Now, if both Trump and Pence ragequit....then it gets really interesting.
posted by spinifex23 at 4:18 PM on July 30, 2016


The RNC picks who becomes the candidate. I doubt they'd pick Pence.
posted by Justinian at 4:19 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


dw, I'm from the Texas Panhandle so I know EXACTLY what you mean. The "You ain't from 'round here" sentiment was thick even before 9/11. :(
posted by stolyarova at 4:19 PM on July 30, 2016


The RNC picks who becomes the candidate. I doubt they'd pick Pence.

It would probably be Ryan or Kasich if something happened with Trump.

My guess would be Kasich, largely because he has managed to keep himself almost entirely free of TrumpTaint, and could very well swing the election by delivering Ohio.
posted by dersins at 4:24 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Problem is that even if Trump ragequits, the GOP then has the problem of the ensuing fight to put not-Trump at the top of the ballot. If they have a plan, and that plan is John Kasich, then they could still save the election. But I would expect a LOT of fighting to break out between Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Pence supporters.

I really don't see Trump walking away now, though. He's in too deep. He hates to lose, but walking makes him an even bigger loser.
posted by dw at 4:29 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


If it's taken from Trump, the thermonuclear scale of his tantrum will effectively deny the RNC the presidency for at least this election, maybe longer.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:32 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]



My guess would be Kasich, largely because he has managed to keep himself almost entirely free of TrumpTaint, and could very well swing the election by delivering Ohio.


It's unknowable because we're so far off-piste at this point. If Trump goes before the election, what does his base do? That depends on the manner of his going.

But none of the scenarios playing in my head are good for the GOP.
posted by Devonian at 4:34 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think that older voters, who are Republican by tradition and not because of radio rage, are going to be extremely uncomfortable with Trump being disrespectful towards an older Gold Star family. He, and everyone else, is under the impression that he can say what hebwants without consequence, but I think 1) this is a step too far -- he reveals himself as a buffoon and a bully; and 2) there is a cumulative effect of one terrible contrast after another after another.
posted by argybarg at 4:35 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


> I really don't see Trump walking away now, though. He's in too deep. He hates to lose, but walking makes him an even bigger loser.

Pretty much this.

As reiterated numerous times, he has to win every challenge given to him. He didn't care about being President, he wanted to win the primary, and the GOP primaries were such a shit show, and he was able to keep them in such disarray, that he felt comfortable competing.

Now he's seeing that the Democrats have their shit relatively locked down and can't be bullied. His actions about the debates are his tell - he doesn't think he will win in a fair fight, so he's building the narrative to change it in his favor.

As mentioned up thread, if he starts talking about Johnson and Stein not have representation and that we need a four way debate, he's retreating to his familiar turf. I hope the press laughs him off and realize they are part of what caused this travesty in the first place.
posted by mrzarquon at 4:35 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


He hates to lose, but walking makes him an even bigger loser.

Not in his eyes. He's great at saying shit like..."I'm to great for this third rate democratic process, this is all rigged by the media folks, that's why I'm so far behind in the polls, so I'm out because my opponents are losers and failures."

Sure it doesn't make sense.
posted by vrakatar at 4:35 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm sure the GOP has been trying to figure out how to get rid of him before this, but he's contaminated the GOP base against it's own leadership to the point where they may feel like he's the only one who can steer this mob, how can they influence him.
posted by mrzarquon at 4:37 PM on July 30, 2016


>She handled the Benghazi hearings like the pro that she is

I hadn't really thought much about this, but Clinton has been plugged in to the real reality -- not the kayfabe show we outer-party people get, since 1993.

I like to think I'm reasonably informed about the world, but what Clinton has seen, done, and the talks with powerful people she's had makes my circle of understanding quite microscopic in comparison.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 4:40 PM on July 30, 2016 [25 favorites]


If Trump looked at the polls, decided he couldn't win, and bowed out in say, the last few weeks up to election, the GOP might not be able to get another candidate on the ballot in all 50 states in time. They'd have to organize all the delegates again, and hold a lightning-quick convention, then do all the mountains of paperwork to file with the FEC and get a name on ballots. Or they could try a write-in campaign. But mostly the ballots would probably still say Trump/Pence and Clinton/Kaine. Actually this would be a great strategy for Trump. Say you're quitting on, say, Nov 2nd. Then if you win anyway, because your name is still on the ballots, say you never meant it, you were sarcastic. I hope he's not reading this.
posted by dis_integration at 4:43 PM on July 30, 2016


Even if Trump didn't say a word, airplay of the nasty things he's already said—which will be played back over and over—will be enough to alienate a bunch of groups of people. Like, say, women. I feel like he will be crushed by his own words and our one lasting image of him will be him mocking the disabled reporter.
posted by snofoam at 4:48 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm actually terrified of Trump dropping out, specifically because while that would give Clinton the Whitehouse, it may slow the inertia against winning back the House, Senate, and state legislatures. The urgency dies down, and those downticket races that need huge Left and Democratic turn outs to flip seats don't happen.
posted by mrzarquon at 4:53 PM on July 30, 2016 [12 favorites]


My head canon is Trump is actually an archangel sent by a vengeful God to dismantle the GOP for fifty-odd years of hateful bullshit done in His name.

If it isn't true, Neil Gaiman should write it.
posted by Mooski at 4:53 PM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


> I feel like he will be crushed by his own words and our one lasting image of him will be him mocking the disabled reporter.

In previous DNC threads, that still image has polled as causing the most negative reaction against Trump.

I hope it is used sparingly, otherwise the over saturation of it would remove it's effectiveness, and drive people away from voting in general (but not towards Trump).
posted by mrzarquon at 4:54 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I can think of nothing so self-destructive and pointless as going after the subminiscule BoBs by attacking Sanders. His voters and supporters are still involved, now in the service of Hillary's campaign, and they are grass-roots, retail-politics types who will do a lot of her heavy lifting. Don't insult and alienate some of your most effective operatives by continually re-fighting the primaries.

Just ignore the BoBs. They hate that. They're not worth a scrap of effort to convince or counter, they are utterly irrelevant, and they know it.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:58 PM on July 30, 2016 [17 favorites]


Okay, let's not get into "Surely this..." because we know how that worked out before (search for "Surely this..."). BUT as I've said before*, Deranged Donald has reached all the 'natural' support he can expect and is doing nothing practical to reach out beyond that. Individual 'gaffes' will no longer build his base, but won't hurt him badly; still the effect of each one will tear away a small amount of the "will vote for any Republican" segment, and you can expect him to keep on making offensive/stupid statements on a daily basis for the next three months. Upthread we were reminded that the hard-core Trumpists are sure voters, but his daily WTFs will motivate more anti-Trumpists. Meanwhile, having high-profile Republicans endorse Gary Johnson won't be as good as endorsing Clinton, but enough of them could start a move for the Libertarian Party to replace the Republicans as America's Conservatives, and that division could, in the short-to-medium run, really help ALL the Democrats. As I have said before*, where the Democrats need to spend their money is GOTV, even after Hillary seems to have it wrapped up, to build some downstream numbers that could turn the Senate, half-turn the House and turn some red state houses purplish.

*am I repeating myself too much? probably.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:02 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


If Trump bailed too close to the election, his electors would have to decide who to vote for. Presumably the party would try to coordinate them, but they can really vote for anybody.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:02 PM on July 30, 2016


So Bill Clinton is on the bus tour with Hillary and Kaine but isn't speaking. He just sat there opposite Kaine's wife smiling and clapping being the deferential candidate's spouse.
posted by octothorpe at 5:02 PM on July 30, 2016 [66 favorites]


In previous DNC threads, that still image has polled as causing the most negative reaction against Trump.

My mom was leaning slightly towards Trump until she saw that.
posted by drezdn at 5:06 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


In addition to balloons, Bill Clinton is thrilled by Lincoln Logs!
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 5:07 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


All that communicative energy has to go somewhere. I wonder if Bill has a secret Twitter account.
posted by maudlin at 5:07 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


@darth
posted by drezdn at 5:09 PM on July 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


So Bill Clinton is on the bus tour with Hillary and Kaine but isn't speaking. He just sat there opposite Kaine's wife smiling and clapping being the deferential candidate's spouse.

I know he'll have a larger role in the campaign/administration in days to come, as he should, but it is so satisfying watching him only get mentioned when she wants him to twirl and show his American-made shirt.
posted by acidic at 5:10 PM on July 30, 2016 [30 favorites]


I have it on good authority that @dril is actually Bill Clinton.
posted by sporkwort at 5:12 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]




Grandpa Bill Clinton is the best Bill Clinton.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:19 PM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


There must be those in the GOP leadership who want to ensure Trump remains on the ballot and is humiliated. Not just as a means to try and moderate the party base; but more so because they are men with big egos whom Trump has insulted and belittled over the last year.
posted by humanfont at 5:22 PM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


Set up the "debate" in game show format.
I just saw the first 15 minutes of the "Revived" MADtv. (So you don't have to, but if you WANT to...) The first sketch has a depressed Wolf Blitzer ("what is my network making me DO?!?") hosting a Trump v. Clinton GAME SHOW with their spouses: "The Trulywed Game". The caricatures of Bill Clinton and The Donald are standard-variety (in fact, Bill comes off a little more buffoonish than Donald) and Melania is almost literally a trained dog (Donald tosses her some 'treats'). Hillary is played as constantly frustrated, but in the only non-jokey moment, she actually gets to point out several real issues in about 12 seconds until Bill interrupts her. For the big unfunny finish, Bill ends up making a deal with Trump to be HIS running mate. The lack of over-the-top caricature of Hillary is the best thing about the bit. (I wonder if the Real Bill saw the sketch before he decided to stay in the background on tour) But then, a few minutes later there's a sketch of a Hillary rally in which she's depicted as anxious and awkward in front of the audience then brings up Elizabeth Warren to speak for her and the Warren caricature starts ranting and rapping and dissing Trump mercilessly (a little but not much more coherently than a Trump rant, and not much funnier, since this IS MADtv) and The Crowd Goes Wild and Hillary's shocked/unamused/awkward response is supposed to be part of the joke. After Warren's exit, she goes, 'wellll...' and begins awkwardly trying to emulate a hip-hop approach and I expected something truly cringewothy, but after only a few seconds she just calls Warren back out and fades into the backgound. If this is going to be MADtv's approach in satirizing Hillary Clinton, the Hillary Haters won't have very much to grab onto.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:22 PM on July 30, 2016


Okay, now if the NFL says Trumpy is lying, then Surely This...
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:24 PM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


There must be those in the GOP leadership who want to ensure Trump remains on the ballot and is humiliated. Not just as a means to try and moderate the party base; but more so because they are men with big egos whom Trump has insulted and belittled over the last year.

Hey this is a great point and makes a lot of sense! And it explains things like the rumors that Kasich is withholding a lot of material support in Ohio.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:28 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]




Little uplifting note here: at about 3:30PST today, the Pocket Constitution was #9 on Amazon's list of best-selling books. All categories.

As of 5:30pm, it has fallen to #12, but still...thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Khan.
(Note: the Kindle version is free. Y'know. For all you MeFites who don't already have this on your phone or tablet or whatever for some reason. Now is a good time to get it.)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:30 PM on July 30, 2016 [34 favorites]


Little uplifting note here: at about 3:30PST today, the Pocket Constitution was #9 on Amazon's list of best-selling books. All categories.

Just to check, is that the one with the moon law commentary?
posted by Artw at 5:31 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]




That Bruce Bartlett piece is from over a year ago, yes? I wonder what he thinks now.
posted by Justinian at 5:36 PM on July 30, 2016


Oliver and Colbert on America's stepdad
posted by salix at 5:37 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]




The irony is, a little less than $500k a year is still a ton of money; only Trump would be embarrassed by only making that much.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:45 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


If the NFL claims they didn't send him a letter, I'm inclined to think they must have done so.

Or he received a snarky letter from the National Forensic League saying "dude, cancel your debate."
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:47 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hey don't knock Tim Kaine. My Romney-voting parents who hate Clinton but hate Trump even more are enamored with Kaine and have now started telling folks who ask that they're "voting for Tim Kaine this year." I'll take it!
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:47 PM on July 30, 2016 [37 favorites]


"Donald Trump was the recipient of a middle-class tax exemption here in New York known as “STAR”. It’s reserved for people earning under $500,000 per year, and it acts to exempt some of the assessed value of a person’s primary residence from school taxes. Trump’s campaign spokeswoman said Trump would refund an amount equal to the STAR exemption, claiming it was all an “error”. But it was applied again in 2016.... The STAR exemption could not have been made in “error”; it is not automatic. An eligible middle-class homeowner must affirmatively apply to receive a STAR exemption."

Meredith!
posted by box at 5:47 PM on July 30, 2016 [50 favorites]



Exclusive @FiveThirtyEight projection on what the Electoral College would look like if women refuse to vote Trump


Why is that a 270toWin map?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:48 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


So on the one hand we have the NFL claiming they didn't send Donald Trump a letter and on the other we have Donald Trump claiming they received it. I suspect one of the two:
1: The letter was sent but got lost in the post.
2: The letter asked Donald Trump to have the debate.
posted by Francis at 5:50 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


The irony is, a little less than $500k a year is still a ton of money; only Trump would be embarrassed by only making that much.

It would be a lot more embarrassing if he submitted fraudulent returns to get a measly (to him) few hundred bucks off his property tax bill.
posted by ctmf at 5:51 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


i can't vouch for the source, but this article claims that trump can't release his tax returns because they would show his adjusted gross income is less than 500k, making him eligible for a middle-class property tax break

He definitely took the tax break, as reported extensively by Crain's, but there were also statements by the mayor's office that it was a mistake.

Meanwhile, how about the fact that NYS gives you a middle class tax break if you make $499K/year?
posted by zachlipton at 5:51 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


They might have a good api? Sam Wang is linking to one as well.
posted by The Gaffer at 5:51 PM on July 30, 2016


Talking about 538, and realizing they may have some kind of lag, I think they just showed Trumps chances increasing post DNC. :-(
posted by Artw at 5:52 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why on earth would the NFL send Trump a letter? That claim makes no sense. If the NFL wanted to complain about TV scheduling conflicts, they'd either do it directly to the Commission on Presidential Debates or they would go through their broadcast partners.

Roger Goodell aside, the NFL isn't completely stupid. They have to be smart enough to avoid engaging Donald Trump in any way, positive or negative.
posted by zachlipton at 5:55 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I really hope the tax returns thing sticks around like Obama's birth certificate. I hope people keep hounding for those tax returns and ask what he is hiding and what he is so afraid of.
posted by VTX at 5:58 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


If Trump pulls out of the debates, they should just have Clinton debate Kaine's Trump impression.
posted by dirigibleman at 5:59 PM on July 30, 2016 [51 favorites]


Or, the NFL people would call Trump's people on the telephone and do this in back channels instead of sending him a weird letter like its 1956. The fact he said letter is the weirdest part to me.
posted by gatorae at 6:02 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump rescued by firefighters before blasting Colorado Springs Fire Marshal

Trump was reportedly trapped inside an elevator at The Mining Exchange Hotel with ten other people 30 minutes before the event was scheduled to begin at 2 p.m.

Firefighters were able to open the top elevator hatch and lower a ladder into the elevator so all parties, including Trump, could safely evacuate into the second-floor lobby area of the hotel, KRDO said. 

posted by mediareport at 6:06 PM on July 30, 2016 [34 favorites]


> I hope people keep hounding for those tax returns and ask what he is hiding and what he is so afraid of.

Tim Kaine's schtick about it is amazing. I hope they just do 10 second youtube clips of Kaine doing his Trump impersonation with whatever denial he comes up with next.
posted by mrzarquon at 6:11 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump was reportedly trapped inside an elevator at The Mining Exchange Hotel with ten other people 30 minutes before the event was scheduled to begin at 2 p.m.

Oh please please please please can we get the security camera footage from that elevator. Juicy.
posted by dis_integration at 6:12 PM on July 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


That Bruce Bartlett piece is from over a year ago, yes? I wonder what he thinks now.

Bruce Bartlett: The Republican Party Has Become the Party of Hate

“My goal is to destroy the Republican Party”: Former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett explains his vote for Donald Trump
posted by homunculus at 6:13 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well I mean obviously the NFL has had an axe to grind against Donald ever since he helped run that competing league into the ground.
posted by ckape at 6:17 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I guess that's good and all but where was Bartlett when his boss, Reagan, was spouting off about welfare queens and black bucks buying t-bone steaks with food stamps? I don't really see Trump as all that different from St. Ronnie.
posted by octothorpe at 6:21 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


The firefighter elevator thing is enough to make me think we're definitely living in a simulation and this is all an insane joke.
posted by odinsdream at 6:24 PM on July 30, 2016 [28 favorites]


Hmmm... I can't wear political stuff at work, but surely I can wear New Jersey Generals merch... brb, eBaying.
posted by box at 6:25 PM on July 30, 2016


Reagan at least wanted to have an America, Trump wants to have a police state.
posted by vrakatar at 6:25 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


The firefighter elevator thing is enough to make me think we're definitely living in a simulation and this is all an insane joke.

Trump as The Joker?
posted by Justinian at 6:25 PM on July 30, 2016


If Trump has a problem with the Commission on Presidential Debates that's fine, we can just scrap it and go back to having the League of Women Voters host the debates instead.

In fact, let's do that anyway.
posted by ckape at 6:27 PM on July 30, 2016 [28 favorites]


Well I mean obviously the NFL has had an axe to grind against FOR Donald ever since he helped run that competing league into the ground.

After his incompetence killed the USFL, the NFL would do ANYTHING for him... except let him buy an interest in one of their teams.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:28 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I absolutely agree that Republican action for decades has led us almost inevitably to Trump, but when the future of the US is at stake, now might not be the best time to point fingers about the past and reject an ally against him. Yes, they crossed the line long ago, but I'd rather have them realize it late than never and have them pulling on our side of the tug-of-war than on the other side. In getting moderates and sane Republicans to cross over, they are probably the best advocates.
posted by chris24 at 6:29 PM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Oh shit if we got the League running debates again out of this election insanity?

Actually... I bet wonks are going over this right now since clearly the GOP is doomed, so what good is a debate commission involving them in the future?
posted by odinsdream at 6:33 PM on July 30, 2016


Yeah, Bartlett wants Trump to lose in a landslide, which means he's With Her (for at least this cycle.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:33 PM on July 30, 2016


So, Trump can produce the NFL letter, right? Or is it being audited?

Put another way - how long can he keep the whole cloth fantasising going now he's earned the spotlight? 100 days seems a bit of a reach.
posted by Devonian at 6:35 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


the fact that NYS gives you a middle class tax break if you make $499K/year?

Not New York State. New York City.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:36 PM on July 30, 2016


Little uplifting note here: at about 3:30PST today, the Pocket Constitution was #9 on Amazon's list of best-selling books. All categories.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly which pocket constitution that is...

Not New York State. New York City.

STAR is NYS. I knows because I gets it.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:40 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oliver and Colbert on America's stepdad yt

Who did "America's Stepdad" first? I saw it here, but it's obvious enough that I could see multiple instances of it popping up simultaneously.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:40 PM on July 30, 2016


New York City. Where the cost of living is pretty damn high. Partly because of the grossly overpriced rentals in buildings with the name "TRUMP" on them.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:40 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]




Don't forget Russians parking cash in real estate they rarely use.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:42 PM on July 30, 2016


Idea for advert: find people who live in shitty trumpy buildings and get them in front of the camera.
posted by vrakatar at 6:43 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Wow. I'm wrong. You're right. My mistake, I had no idea. That's nuts.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:44 PM on July 30, 2016


Just to check, is that the one with the moon law commentary?

I wish I hadn't checked the Amazon top ten just now. It's a big week for Clinton Conspiracy Fanfic books, looks like. Not all nineties reboots are fun.

Hamilton's doing really well too tho
posted by EatTheWeak at 6:44 PM on July 30, 2016


What Should We Call Bill Clinton if Hillary Is Elected?

I know it's really "first gentleman" but I kinda hope he asks for "first bubba" or "national grandpa."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:46 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


What Should We Call Bill Clinton if Hillary Is Elected? Away. As often as possible.

It's a big week for Clinton Conspiracy Fanfic books, looks like. Well, the right wing wackos who don't WANT to support Trump have to put their money somewhere, and at least it's not to downticket races.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:48 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't really see Trump as all that different from St. Ronnie.

Candidates Reagan & Bush-41 Discuss Illegal Immigration in 1980 Debate.
We could also talk about little things like our commitments to NATO and Japan, or gun control, or speaking with basic humanity. Hell, we could probably go on for hours.

I'm no fan of Reagan. At all. Dude was an awful president in a lot of ways. But false equivalency is false equivalency, and it's not any cooler when it's aimed at two people I don't like than it is when people try to say Trump and Clinton aren't any different.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:50 PM on July 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


>> Every time I see BoBs in these threads I think of Outkast

>I think of the artist B.o.B. yt , and when people talk about "Busters" I interpret it according to this definition.


Just to be that guy, but B.o.B. took his artist name from the Outkast song. Not that that's a bad thing.

"buster" meaning "punk-ass" definitely predates him, though.
posted by lkc at 6:52 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd love to see either the STAR thing or the NFL one get some legs. They're both simple, relatable--there probably won't be a surely this moment, but there are a lot of people that are just now starting to pay attention, and that can be chipped away between now and November.
posted by box at 6:53 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


the fact that NYS gives you a middle class tax break if you make $499K/year?

Look at it this way: NYS has two different property tax rates. One for rich-as-fuck jerkbags, and the other for everyone else. Even the one for everyone else is pretty eye-watering, but OTOH you do get back usually good schools and other services that don't suck donkey balls. That oughta get the MCRN off our backs...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:53 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Look at it this way: NYS has two different property tax rates. One for rich-as-fuck jerkbags, and the other for everyone else. Even the one for everyone else is pretty eye-watering, but OTOH you do get back usually good schools and other services that don't suck donkey balls. That oughta get the MCRN off our backs...

And the people who are actually poor get a bigger tax break still.

It's more wealth redistribution rather than a tax break.
posted by Talez at 6:55 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I feel like he will be crushed by his own words and our one lasting image of him will be him mocking the disabled reporter.

In previous DNC threads, that still image has polled as causing the most negative reaction against Trump.


I wish. One of my cousins posted a comment about that image on FB. Another cousin's ex wife jumped in to DEFEND Trump and not by saying that he didn't say it, but that he didn't say it while the disabled reporter was actually in the room. In her mind it's ok for Trump to mock a disabled person because she thought she didn't do it to his face.

What makes it even more perplexing is that yet another cousin, her ex husband's sister, has a child with Down's Syndrome that she has known since he was born. She has a disabled nephew and STILL found a way to defend this shit.
posted by hollygoheavy at 6:56 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


What Should We Call Bill Clinton if Hillary Is Elected?

Confusingly, a lot of modern (apparently incorrect, according to Emily Post) usage would address him as "President Clinton". Now, this was also a problem for "President Bush", and might have very briefly been a problem for "President Adams", but neither GHWB nor John Adams was nearly as much in the public eye during their son's term as we might reasonably expect Bill Clinton to be during his wife's.
posted by jackbishop at 6:56 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


>> Every time I see BoBs in these threads I think of Outkast

>I think of the artist B.o.B. yt , and when people talk about "Busters" I interpret it according to this definition.


Born on board. (Old skool!)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:58 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I believe the media has used President George H.W. Bush to differentiate the two. Or, many of them call him "Poppy" Bush.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:03 PM on July 30, 2016


Confusingly, a lot of modern (apparently incorrect, according to Emily Post) usage would address him as "President Clinton".

OK, this might disappear b/c the mods don't like honorific discussions, but the rule is you use the highest title someone has achieved. Normally this is simple. I would argue that POTUS and FGOTUS are equal and so you should use the most recent of those.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:03 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


The NY Post has tomorrow cover story up of naked pix of Melania. I'm not sure what's worse, Trump probably leaking naked photos of his wife to the Post to distract from his craven comments about the Khans, or the Post running them on the front page. I despise Trump beyond words, but Melania's modeling past isn't news and shouldn't be an election consideration. There's so much awfulness about him, we don't need to be slut-shaming her.
posted by chris24 at 7:05 PM on July 30, 2016 [25 favorites]


PPP says they'll have a post-convention poll out in the next hour or so and that Democrats will be fairly happy with it. Said they would be even happier if not for the unreasonable hopes given by the +15 Clinton poll out this morning. I'm betting on a 6-7 point bounce from PPP.
posted by Justinian at 7:06 PM on July 30, 2016


FGOTUS is a dreadful acronym though. Bubba Clinton. Bubba of The United States. BOTUS.
posted by EatTheWeak at 7:07 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm betting on a 6-7 point bounce from PPP.

Since their last poll had C +4, that would mean this poll will be +10 for Clinton. I doubt it's that high, but that'd be great!
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:08 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


So the NY Post has tomorrow cover story up of naked pix of Melania. I'm not sure what's worse, Trump probably leaking naked photos of his wife to the Post to distract from his craven comments about the Khans, or the Post running them on the front page. I hate Trump beyond words, but Melania's modeling past isn't news and shouldn't be an election consideration. There's so much awfulness about him, we don't need to be slut-shaming her.

Yeah this is pretty bizarre. Those photographs have been "leaked" for a long time, and last came up in the whole Cruz/Trump Wife Kerfuffle (the more important plagiarism of the campaign being Cruz's cribbing of Michael Douglas in The American President. Thanks MEREDITH). European model poses nude is not exactly news. Have they seen the French Vogue?
posted by dis_integration at 7:09 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Born on board. (Old skool!)

Frog blast the vent core!

So far in the last 24 hours, the human Cheeto has managed to disparage a Gold Star mother, lie about the NFL, lie about the Koch brothers, and belittle the award-winning fire marshal who'd just saved him from an elevator because the room was at capacity.

Trump Pence 2016: There is always more and it is always worse.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 7:11 PM on July 30, 2016 [34 favorites]


President Consort
posted by ckape at 7:11 PM on July 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


Since their last poll had C +4, that would mean this poll will be +10 for Clinton. I doubt it's that high, but that'd be great!

Yeah, I wasn't taking their previous friendly-to-Clinton poll into account. I don't see them being +10 or +11 for Clinton at this point, maybe +8 or +9. So that would only be a 4 point bounce. Still, +8 or +9 Clinton will mean I can stop sniffing glue this week.
posted by Justinian at 7:11 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'd be really surprised if polls next week aren't even better for Clinton. The Khan story is just horrible for Trump.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:12 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah this is pretty bizarre.

Yep. I can see Trump trying to push them now to distract, but why would the Post decide now is the time to run them when they could've before. I guess Murdoch has decided to try and help Trump. In a very weird way.
posted by chris24 at 7:13 PM on July 30, 2016


nathan_teske: "Paraphrasing here but their problem is that if you pull him off the campaign trail to keep him from saying dumb things he gets on Twitter and says dumb things."

If Trump unusual in actually running his own twitter? I would have figured any politician above the dog catcher level would have a campaign staff handling it to avoid unintentional gaffs.

ThePinkSuperhero: "The irony is, a little less than $500k a year is still a ton of money; only Trump would be embarrassed by only making that much."

To be fair it is figured on countrywide family income; Trump could be making a lot less.

gatorae: "Or, the NFL people would call Trump's people on the telephone and do this in back channels instead of sending him a weird letter like its 1956. The fact he said letter is the weirdest part to me."

Remember he thinks electrons can be hacked; letters are delivered by courier.
posted by Mitheral at 7:13 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump is like a buffoonish version of Mr. Burns. Bring me some petroleum distillate for my motor carriage post haste, Smithers!
posted by Justinian at 7:16 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Botus, you say? I grew up not that far from Botus, as tiz called,, and tiz best known for The Hole In The Wall, aka the Rising Sun pub, which serves proper turn-yer-shit-yellow scrumpy from a barrel behind the bar with a tap that squeaks, but only in half-pint measures because tiz proper lethal, m'lover.

So that may be appropriate.
posted by Devonian at 7:16 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


@(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates
I'd be really surprised if polls next week aren't even better for Clinton. The Khan story is just horrible for Trump.

You would like to think so. But this comment from a right-wing blog I follow says it all:
Its not about Trump as such. Its more about giving the finger to the establishment and all their bullshit that they have dished up to us plebs over the years. It’s now payback time and they don’t like whats coming at them in November.
So Trump's boast about shooting someone and not losing any votes rings true for his supporters. They are just angry and in a rage about the world. They are beyond reason I suspect.
posted by vac2003 at 7:21 PM on July 30, 2016 [13 favorites]


Husband of the United States, or, HOTUS
posted by gerryblog at 7:23 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think you're wrong when it comes to criticizing a Gold Star military family.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:23 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah this is pretty bizarre.

I mean FFS, the article about the Melania pictures has a positive, non-angry quote from him about the images. He's clearly in on it.

"When asked about the photos, Trump told The Post: “Melania was one of the most successful models and she did many photo shoots, including for covers and major magazines. This was a picture taken for a European magazine prior to my knowing Melania. In Europe, pictures like this are very fashionable and common.”
posted by chris24 at 7:24 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


scaryblackdeath: " the Kindle version is free. Y'know. For all you MeFites who don't already have this on your phone or tablet or whatever for some reason. Now is a good time to get it."

As is the Canadian Constitution. I'd guess most constitutions are though I'm not going to do the research to determine veracity of a google search for assorted countries constitutions.

roomthreeseventeen: "I believe the media has used President George H.W. Bush to differentiate the two. Or, many of them call him "Poppy" Bush."

Yes, this seems like a non-issue just by inserting first names whenever there might be confusion.

Or President Elect Clinton could avoid it and go for maximum head explodey action and announce a name change to Hillary Diane Clinton Rodham on January 19th forthwith to be known as President Rodham. Thereby also making it easier on 3rd graders memorizing the presidents in the future. Rodham is a better Presidential name anyways.

Actually I guess MAXIMUM head explodey action would be if she went full catholic style and chose a brand new name ala the popes.
posted by Mitheral at 7:24 PM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


Looking at sites like 270towin have helped me to kick my glue-sniffing habit. The states they list as toss-ups? All but one (NC) went for Obama twice. Of their ten toss-up states, four are ones that Trump didn't win in the primary (CO, IA, OH, WI), and some of the others (e.g. NH), he won on a fluke. He's not going to win NC or NV or VA, and OH and PA seem like longshots. FL might be close, but it won't decide the election. Hillary is Ether Nas--she will not lose.
posted by box at 7:24 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean, this is the Republican Governor of Ohio. This attack just might be different than the others.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:25 PM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


New PPP poll: Clinton +5 (including Johnson & Stein)

Likeability improved by 9, from -15 to -6, vs Trump's -22

"Undecideds" lean Democratic. If these voters embrace Clinton, she'd be at +8.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 7:31 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


PPP poll is out:
Clinton's net favorability improved by 9 points over the last month. She's still not popular, with a -6 net favorability at 45/51, but it's a good deal better than the -15 spread she had at 39/54 a month ago. The gains are particularly attributable to Democrats increasing in their enthusiasm for her, going from giving her a 76/15 rating to an 83/12 one. Trump, on the other hand, is at a -22 net favorability with 36% of voters seeing him favorably to 58% with a negative one. That's barely changed at all from the 35/58 standing we found for him in late June.

Clinton leads the race with 46% to 41% for Trump, with Gary Johnson at 6% and Jill Stein at 2%. In a head to head just between Clinton and Trump, Clinton hits 50% and leads Trump 50-45. A month ago Clinton led 45-41 in the full field contest and 48-44 in the head to head so there hasn't been much change. But not much change is good news for Clinton. We've been writing for months that this race is shaping up pretty similarly both nationally and at the state level to the margins Barack Obama won by in 2012- not a huge landslide by any means, but a solid victory. The conventions have passed without any change to that big picture, and that leaves Clinton as the favorite going into the final three months.

It's also important to note that most of the remaining undecided pool is very Democratic leaning. They give Barack Obama a 55/33 approval rating, and they'd rather have him as President than Trump by a 59/10 spread. If they ended up voting for Clinton and Trump by those proportions, it would push Clinton's lead up from 5 points to 8. But they don't like Clinton (a 4/83 favorability) or Trump (a 2/89 favorability). A lot of these folks are disaffected Bernie Sanders voters, and even after the successful convention this week they're still not sold on Clinton yet. She and her surrogates will have to keep working to try to win those folks over and if they can the election enters landslide territory
posted by zachlipton at 7:31 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Jinx
posted by GameDesignerBen at 7:33 PM on July 30, 2016


Eh, still gonna sniff glue. That's the same lead as before. Booooo.
posted by Justinian at 7:34 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


"33% [of Trump supporters] think Clinton even has ties to Lucifer, to 36% who say they don't think so, and 31% who are unsure either way."

PPP have the best troll questions.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 7:37 PM on July 30, 2016 [29 favorites]


PPP: By a 47 point margin- 5% more likely, 52% less likely- voters say they're less likely to vote for a candidate if it's perceived Russia is interfering in the election to try to help them.

hahahahahaha
posted by acidic at 7:37 PM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


From that poll: 74% of Trump voters think Clinton should be in prison, to only 12% who disagree

That Benghazi Investigation was the most effective political ratfucking in history. The mind reels. Haven't these people heard of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

Yeah, glue sniffing is in order.
posted by dis_integration at 7:38 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Harambe outpolls Stein
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:40 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


So the NY Post has tomorrow cover story up of naked pix of Melania. I'm not sure what's worse, Trump probably leaking naked photos

Is there some reason we need to go further with this than the Post? Speculating about who leaked those photos is pointless. The Post is run by adults--ostensibly, at least--and they're making this decision themselves. They don't get any free passes based on who sent that stuff to them. This is an absolutely awful thing for them to do, full stop.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:41 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm pretty sure I wasn't excusing the Post, but rather saying they were both awful and inexcusable.
posted by chris24 at 7:43 PM on July 30, 2016




With the Khizr Khan thing, for the first time, I'm beginning to wonder - could the entire Trump candidacy really be a gag put together by Bill and Hillary? Or is it really some out of control Producers-esque scam?

How can Trump lack the tiniest bit of self control? All he needed to do was not engage with the family of a dead soldier - "I'm sorry for their loss, I honor their sacrifice, Obama and Clinton sent their son to war without body armor" - or whatever. Instead, those clips of Khan at the convention are getting airtime for the third straight day, along with Stephanopoulos looking stunned as he double checks with Trump that employing people was a "sacrifice" on his part.

What is wrong with this man?
posted by RedOrGreen at 7:43 PM on July 30, 2016 [21 favorites]


I'd say I think they believe Clinton should be in prison not for Benghazi but for her email practices but that's giving Trump voters too much credit. They don't care what the justification is they simply want to see Clinton humiliated and imprisoned by any means necessary.
posted by Justinian at 7:44 PM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Also Obama has risen to 53% approve 43% disapprove of his job in the Gallup tracking poll.
posted by humanfont at 7:45 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'd say I think they believe Clinton should be in prison not for Benghazi but for her email practices but that's giving Trump voters too much credit. They don't care what the justification is they simply want to see Clinton humiliated and imprisoned by any means necessary.

Yeah but the whole email thing is a product of the Benghazi Commission or whatever, which was a political operation from the beginning.
posted by dis_integration at 7:46 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


So Trump's boast about shooting someone and not losing any votes rings true for his supporters. They are just angry and in a rage about the world. They are beyond reason I suspect.

That's certain - and regrettable. But there aren't enough of them to win the general election. Yet Trump can't do without them: he might be able to go postal in Times Square and still keep them on board, but what he can't do is suddenly pivot into a mainstream politician. His play is that enough of the rest of the electorate will buy into that, I suspect because he was seduced by the passion of his core supporters, and that's not going to happen.

He's gutted the GOP and draped himself in the shit-filled viscera, but apart from a few blue-arsed flies ain't nobody else gonna touch that. The US is not cosplaying the last days of the Weimar Republic, it really is still the greatest show on earth, and while (thanks to the GOP either setting the agenda or blocking it) it is very bad at sharing that with large chunks of its citizens, it's still the legitimate operator of the American Dream.

Clinton is set on reminding people of all this, and she has 100 days to do that against what is now a dysfunctional one-man party with absolutely no depth of defence or resource.

I know the polls don't reflect what we see as self-evident. It's a big country, and there's a lot of inertia. It's entirely possible that Trump's instinctive media sense will keep his imposed reality chugging down the tracks for a while, and by god don't any of you dare let up for a microsecond. But really - take a step back and look at the armies on either side.
posted by Devonian at 7:48 PM on July 30, 2016 [20 favorites]


Trump is fundamentally a bully and he saw in the Khan's an easy victim because that's what bullies typically focus on.

Trump of course went full stereotype and implied Mrs Khan wasn't allowed to talk. And then he compared their relative sacrifices.

When he's feeling pressed that's what he turns to 6th grade bully tactics. Same thing happened when he was making fun of the journalist for having a disability. That's the sort of shit you halfway expect out of a spoiled 12 year old not a 70+ year old man. Emotionally though I guess he's still probably back in middle school.
posted by vuron at 7:52 PM on July 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


I'm glad about the polling, but the thing that makes this still rather depressing is that these people who are rejecting Clinton even if it means increasing Trump's election chances are friends of mine. I'm looking around on Facebook, and there is a group of people who just keep liking each other's posts who are really deep down the conspiracy hole. Many of these are scientists and graduate students, who should be able to distinguish between a good source of information and a bad one - and yet, there they are, posting things from Jill Stein's Meme Site, and falling over themselves to believe that Hillary Clinton is the literal devil. I don't know how to liberate them from this madness, and it's sad because this is our big chance - a real chance for a landslide, to get some actual movement towards progressive goals, maybe take back the Senate or House - and instead, they're giving it all away for some weird idea of purity. I don't get it.
posted by peacheater at 7:52 PM on July 30, 2016 [16 favorites]




"If Trump unusual in actually running his own twitter? I would have figured any politician above the dog catcher level would have a campaign staff handling it to avoid unintentional gaffs."

If Trump's running his own twitter account, you just know his password is ASDF or some shit like that.
posted by klarck at 7:56 PM on July 30, 2016


If Trump's running his own twitter account, you just know his password is ASDF or some shit like that.

12345
posted by entropicamericana at 7:58 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


TRUMP. His password is TRUMP.

I... actually think this might be true.
posted by Justinian at 7:59 PM on July 30, 2016 [42 favorites]


With the Khizr Khan thing, for the first time, I'm beginning to wonder - could the entire Trump candidacy really be a gag put together by Bill and Hillary? Or is it really some out of control Producers-esque scam?

There's no -esque about it.
posted by NMcCoy at 7:59 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


I googled and it has to have 6 characters though

Probably TRUMPTRUMP then
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:01 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


"If Trump unusual in actually running his own twitter? I would have figured any politician above the dog catcher level would have a campaign staff handling it to avoid unintentional gaffs."

Inside Donald Trump's Twitter Operation: ""During the day, I'm in the office, I just shout it out to one of the young ladies, who are tremendous," he said during the appearance.

Trump went on to say that after about 7 p.m., he operates the Twitter feed himself."

So half the time he's yelling out tweets (probably while watching cable news) to the Mad Men style secretaries he of course employs, and after they finally leave the office, he takes over personally. Twitter might be the only thing he's competent at doing, for some values of "competent".
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:02 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


BIGHANDS
posted by chris24 at 8:03 PM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


The Khans responded to Trumps attacks to ABC News tonight (auto-playing video):
"Sacrifice -- I don't think he knows the meaning of sacrifice, the meaning of the word," Ghazala Khan, mother of slain Army Captain Humayun Kahn said. "Because when I was standing there, all America felt my pain. Without saying a single word. Everybody felt that pain."

"Running for president is not an entitlement to disrespect Gold Star families and [a] Gold Star mother not realizing her pain. Shame on him! Shame on his family!" Khizr Khan said, struggling to hold back his anger. "He is not worthy of our comments. He has no decency. He is void of decency, he has a dark heart."

In response to Trump's suggestion that Ghazala Khan did not speak at the DNC because it was forbidden by her religion, she said today the real reason she remained silent was her all-consuming grief.

"I didn't feel anything except the pain," she said through tears, before pleading: "Mr. Trump feel that pain and you will feel better. Please. I am very upset when I heard when he said that I didn't say anything. I was in pain. If you were in pain you fight or you don't say anything, I’m not a fighter, I can't fight. So the best thing I do was quiet."
posted by zachlipton at 8:03 PM on July 30, 2016 [117 favorites]


I'm assuming Trump made up the NFL letter thing because he realized his tweet made it sound like he was afraid to go up against the NFL so he just made up shit to make it sound like it was the NFL that was afraid of going up against him.
posted by ckape at 8:06 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


In email statement, Trump keeps insisting he was wronged by Khizr Khan. No walkback of comments on Ghazala Khan. (NYT)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:06 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump seems to think that "Have you even read the United States Constitution?" was a literal question akin to an English teacher asking if a student even did the reading and not a rhetorical device. Of course, Trump vowed to defend Article XII, which does make me think that both the literal and figurative questions are perfectly appropriate here.
posted by zachlipton at 8:13 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Khans' response cannot be favorited enough. And while it's poignant, heartbreaking and justifiable, I'm sure Trump will be unable to help himself in responding even more harshly. It will be sweet karma indeed if this amazing Muslim couple helps cost him the election.
posted by chris24 at 8:14 PM on July 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


I can't decide if I should cry at Mrs. Khan's lovely but utterly needless response, or screamcackle at Trump's response. He is in a death spiral of narcissism, this is incredible.
posted by gatorae at 8:15 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]




Between how Trump spoke about POWs in regards to Senator McCain and how he's treating these Gold Star parents, I have to imagine he's alienating a good chunk of the US military. I would not vote for a perfect progressive who said that kind of crap and I'm just an adult Air Force brat.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:20 PM on July 30, 2016 [17 favorites]


Fuck Trump. This motherfucker can't be allowed to even sniff the throne of power.
posted by Talez at 8:21 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


"buster" meaning "punk-ass" definitely predates him, though.

At least back to when it was referenced as a synonym to "scrub."
posted by dw at 8:23 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


> NYTimes: People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List

Interesting that of all of the "Places" he has Twitter-insulted, the United States is at the top of the list.
posted by Salieri at 8:25 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Who else can the Democrats bait Trump into starting beef with? How much lower can you go than "talking shit about the bereaved parents of a heroic soldier who died saving lives"? Like, will Trump start shit with the little girl with undocumented parents who spoke at the DNC?

I mean, I'm laugh/crying in horror here. We're far beyond the "surely, this" moment here, but we might as well make it worse, I guess. We might as well just keep engineering situations where Trump bullies and insults such sacrosanct categories as grieving parents of dead soldiers, innocent children, POWs, whatever.
posted by yasaman at 8:25 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Apparently the fire marshal, Brett Lacey, was named Civilian of the Year in February for his work after the shooting at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic in November. msnbc
posted by gatorae at 8:28 PM on July 30, 2016 [43 favorites]


The Khans' response cannot be favorited enough.

I sacrificed nothing. I don't deserve those favorites.

That family though. I honestly hope everyone can just leave them the hell alone for a while, though I doubt that can happen.
posted by zachlipton at 8:28 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


NYTimes: People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List

United States
NATION
“it will only get worse!”“a divided crime scene”“not looking tough!”“not looking smart”“not looking good”“totally lost control of illegal immigration, even with criminals”“get tough and smart U.S., or we won't have a country anymore”“looks more and more like a paper tiger”“we are weak”“we are letting criminals knowingly stay in our country”“Iran ripped us off by making one of the best deals of any kind in history”“out negotiated again”“has become a dumping ground for the world”
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:29 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]




she said today the real reason she remained silent was her all-consuming grief.

She was incredibly brave, more so than her husband and he took on the biggest bully in town and rocked him down.

Tremendous.
posted by petebest at 8:32 PM on July 30, 2016 [11 favorites]


yasaman: "How much lower can you go than "talking shit about the bereaved parents of a heroic soldier who died saving lives"?"

There must be at least one 9/11 hero of the NYPD we can get him to call a pussy; preferably one who died.
posted by Mitheral at 8:32 PM on July 30, 2016


A friend just pointed out that the evil yam attacked and insulted General John Allen too. General Allen retired because his wife fell ill.

To hell with Trump, his enablers and his supporters.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:43 PM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Let's find a way to get him to say he hates Mr. Rogers.
posted by stolyarova at 8:43 PM on July 30, 2016 [18 favorites]


The Florida Gators would be my target.
posted by Artw at 8:44 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


Puppies? Kittens?
posted by stolyarova at 8:48 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Who else can the Democrats bait Trump into starting beef with?

The cynical part of me thinks this has to have been a guiding principle of speaker selection for the DNC -- so many "here to tell her story with quiet dignity, is a sympathetic person, with one obvious attribute that a schoolyard bully would make fun of" speakers. I'm surprised his people have been able to keep him from publicly making fun of more of the speakers.
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:49 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


Hillary's Hamilton logo

You know they shot him, right?
posted by zachlipton at 8:50 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


But given that Bernie Sanders would be the closest thing Hillary has to an Aaron Burr figure right now...
posted by Francis at 8:52 PM on July 30, 2016


the "Revived" MADtv.

Quantum Loop re-boot threat level: elevated
posted by thelonius at 8:55 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Do you think anyone on his staff currently actually gives a shit about him actually winning? As long as they are still getting paychecks, I'm pretty sure that the ghouls he is employing don't care one way or another what happens. Anyone who does actually have any fucks would have been felled by ulcers months ago. The only people left are those who are okay with letting him do whatever the hell he wants. You think Manafort gives a flying fig? I don't.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:55 PM on July 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


It'll just be here, on this street, which is all different people and changing all the time, that I think my biggest hurdle is getting people out there to vote- if I get everyone I talk to to commit to getting to a voting booth to know that their vote CAN matter, I am more fired up, more ready to go than I ever have been.

Because this election is unprecedented. rorgy made this. Which everyone in any positions of power needs to know. Those of us who've had awesome technology at our fingertips for what might as well be a lifetime don't get it, have taken it for granted. This is a thing that should be obvious. Thanks to all the people working toward this that Hillary, in what should be the most-televised thing everyone sees until after she's elected, mentioned Twitter and Hamilton and children and health care and just called everyone in this country together to say, "yeah. There's a lot of shit we disagree on but we can't afford to fuck this up."

OBVS.

How much? How much does that speak. I think we're all really coming around to something that was constant and apprent years ago (thanks to technology), that pointing out obvious bullshit is not just possible, but codifiable, and it's just sorta now reaching those who write the rules that could really put you in a cell.

Just the last couple weeks we've seen voter registration amplifiable. I want some big, undeniable words to come out of this: #UNDENIABLE. #SEACHANGE. #REALIGNMENT #SEECHANGE or #AMPLIFY. I'm making this up as I go, saying this from my acknowledgedly privelaged position as a cis het white dude who loves and lives with a woman born in the US and raised in Mexico , with parents who I can barely embarrasedly communicate with because my brain switches to German, not Spanish, when I want to speak something that isn't English, whose daughter just turned three and I'm not even talking about kids or girls or anything, here.

Voting-bullshit laws have been thrown out. With prejudice.

I live and vote in Texas. I don't want to let Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, and Molly Ivins down.
posted by rp at 8:56 PM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]




I'm also not so sure the debates would go well for Hillary. She's excellent, but surely she's only ever debated rational actors. His constant vicious insults and Gish Galloping might literally overtake her.

She kept her cool through 11 hours of the latest Benghazi hearing. She can handle a debate. I just hopes she brushes Trump off.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:09 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


salix, the one in the middle
posted by stolyarova at 9:11 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Currently numbering 250

With the right application of machine learning, RNC databases and electoral roll data, and tweet automation, I'd back him to go the whole hog and individually insult every enrolled voter in the US by Election Day. Come on rogue Trump interns - make it happen!
posted by inflatablekiwi at 9:12 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'd back him to go the whole hog and individually insult every enrolled voter in the US by Election Day. Come on rogue Trump interns - make it happen!

in alphabetical order
posted by murphy slaw at 9:29 PM on July 30, 2016 [6 favorites]


So tonight I'm trying to get some work done after a week of political procrastination, and C-SPAN is replaying stuff from the Democratic convention. (Which means I'm back to getting no work done. Thanks, Obama Hillary.)

Hillary Clinton's speech is on right now, and it makes me both sad and angry that such an accomplished, knowledgeable woman has to put up with such a miserable human being for an opponent. The fact that the polls aren't 100% in her favor is a travesty.

One of the themes that really came out of the convention this week was what a good listener she is, and how deeply she feels called to public service. If nothing else happens, I hope that this election season finally puts to rest the false narrative that Democrats hate their country. I mean, this is a woman who clearly loves this country - for what it can be as well as what it currently is - and she's running against a guy who has nothing but contempt for this country and most of the people in it.

I don't know. Maybe she's at such a disadvantage from decades of mud-slinging that she needed to go up against a human dumpster fire for people to take a second look at her character and record, and that will be a good thing. On the other hand, if there are enough bigoted, angry, apathetic people out there...I don't even want to think about it. I want to believe that we're better as a country than to let this opportunity slip through our hands. It's such a weird thing - it's like, I don't want to let her down when she has faith in our better nature.

In her speech, she said, "America is great because America is good." I hope we prove her right.
posted by Salieri at 9:29 PM on July 30, 2016 [25 favorites]


#TrumpSacrifices
posted by zakur at 9:30 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trigger warning for #TrumpSacrifices: pictures of dead endangered species with the asshole Trump sons that killed them.
posted by stolyarova at 9:32 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trigger warning for #TrumpSacrifices: pictures of dead endangered species with the asshole Trump sons that killed them Twitter.
posted by zakur at 9:45 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


How can Trump lack the tiniest bit of self control? All he needed to do was not engage with the family of a dead soldier

Phenterine is a helluva drug.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:45 PM on July 30, 2016 [5 favorites]


Salix, that baby on the left looks positively presidential! Trump and the right-side baby are losing their shit completely, but she's poised, sparkling, and extending her hand to her admirers like a damn Khaleesi. Got my eye on her for '40.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 9:47 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Looking through the Full Report from PPP

Sanders' favorability between Clinton & Trump supporters are mirror images. For Clinton supporters, it's 77/11, but Trump supporters are 17/71. This puts the lie to the notion that your average Trump voter would have happily gone for Sanders if he had been the nominee.

Trump supporters are about 3x as likely to have an unfavorable view of the GOP as Clinton supporters are to have an unfavorable view of the Dems (22% vs 7%)

2% of Clinton's supporters think she has ties to Lucifer (like Robert Johnson, maybe?)

The more conservative you are, the more likely you approve of Putin (!!!), but, the more extreme your views, liberal or conservative, the more likely you'd support a candidate who was friendly to Russia.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 9:47 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


The more conservative you are, the more likely you approve of Putin (!!!),
For old Commie Fighters, Putin is dream-come-true, a Post-Communist Strongman who's building an Anti-Communist Eastern Europe. (And if you tell them about his 16 years working for the old KGB, they'll call it a lie, just like everything you try to tell them about Saint Trump)
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:02 PM on July 30, 2016


...Stephanopoulos looking stunned as he double checks with Trump that employing people was a "sacrifice" on his part.

What is wrong with this man?


It makes perfect sense to me when I consider narcissism.

Inside Trump's brain, it looks like this:

1. TRUMP is the most important person in the world and the best at all things.
2. Everyone knows this and the people that claim otherwise are enemies of TRUMP.
3. The most important goal for TRUMP is to "win".

So, looking at it through that lens, imagine if you were the best in the world at all things and you had to allow some parts of your empire to be managed by LESSER BEINGS. Not only that, you had to spend some time thinking about those beings, and speaking to them, and giving them some of your hard-earned MONEY. Money is the same as winning, and the more you have, the better a person you are. So you're literally making yourself win a tiny bit less by employing them.

That's a sacrifice!

You'll notice that if you assume #1, 2, and 3, suddenly it makes sense to insult the families of fallen soldiers too.

Sadly, this is the kind of horrible man we are dealing with here.
posted by mmoncur at 10:12 PM on July 30, 2016 [7 favorites]


Can I Be Honest?
posted by R.F.Simpson at 10:13 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Betteridge's law?
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:21 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Can I Be Honest?

Huh. I had actually thought n+1 was pretty smart and thoughtful. Turns out they are staffed by gigantic babies with literally no understanding of the political process.
posted by dersins at 10:25 PM on July 30, 2016 [9 favorites]




What gets me over and over is the blinkered belief that when *they* scream at people and wave signs, it's a glorious virtue, but when other people do it, it's "microaggressions". When they try to to attract the press's attention, it's noble, and if the press don't pay attention, they are "fickle and thoughtless". When the Clinton delegates do it by showing up early to get the best seats, it's oppression.

They get "parental scolding" because they are acting and apparently thinking like self-centered spoiled children.
posted by tavella at 10:36 PM on July 30, 2016 [22 favorites]


The line of the week, and maybe beyond that, belonged to the great Jesse Jackson, who said, with a glint, “the Bern must never grow cold.” Among all the speakers, he alone probably understood what Sanders and his supporters were feeling, and he gave them the truest form of solace: solidarity.

I bet if he thought really hard he could come up with another speaker who understood what Sanders was feeling.
posted by one_bean at 10:42 PM on July 30, 2016 [38 favorites]


When the Clinton delegates do it by showing up early to get the best seats, it's oppression.

Yeah, that moment was especially telling:
She nonetheless got to the arena an hour early, but her delegation seating area had already been filled with Clinton “honored guests” as a way of keeping the Sanders people out.
Sorry, but you are not oppressed, you got out-organized by actual grownups who know what the fuck they're doing. Of course the Clinton campaign made sure they had their delegates to the arena way more than an hour early. Did you think this was fucking debate club?
posted by dersins at 10:48 PM on July 30, 2016 [56 favorites]


I'm not saying I agree with the article, but this caustic air of superiority is . . . unsettling.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 10:49 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sad that you don't even know oppression when you see it.
posted by bongo_x at 10:49 PM on July 30, 2016


Maybe we're worried that these wannabe Naderoids are going to stick us with The Orange One and WW3?
posted by Yowser at 10:54 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]



Dads get up early
, clean the grill, mow the lawn, and cook some fancy burgers with Dijon and cheese because they love you.

Come on over. Sorry, that fence was there before I was, I've been so busy I haven't been able to tear it all down yet, I didn't want it to mess up the way the water runs when it's like flooding-raining, and I just want to make sure it's gonna work when the rain gets bad, but if we work together, I bet we can figure out a solution that the city council won't notice for long enough that as long as it works, it's cool, and maybe we can teach other people how to do it even better than we did, and then we can make that the way everyone builds things.
posted by rp at 10:54 PM on July 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm not saying I agree with the article, but this caustic air of superiority is . . . unsettling.

I'm guessing you agree with the article.
posted by one_bean at 10:55 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Now I'm wondering how oppressive the line at the bar was.
posted by bongo_x at 10:55 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


#trumpsacrifices is quite fun. (although yes, has multiple pictures of trump children killing endangered species and posing proudly)

Some of my favorites:

#TrumpSacrifices Many many sacrifices, wonderful sacrifices and they were outstanding sacrifices, believe me, believe me.

When meeting people has to say names that aren't his own
#TrumpSacrifices

The haters say #Trump never sacrificied. So dishonest. He's sacrificed lots. Here's my list:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
posted by Cozybee at 10:56 PM on July 30, 2016


The Commission on Presidential Debates announced the schedule on September 23, 2015:
First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV
posted by kirkaracha at 10:56 PM on July 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Again, the sticker I want. TRUCK FUMP
posted by X4ster at 10:57 PM on July 30, 2016


The NFL released its 2016-17 schedule on April 15, 2016.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:59 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


[One comment deleted. Hello, this is your regularly scheduled extremely weary and overworked periodic reminder that We've been around this exact track (debating over anti-Hillary diehards on the left) many times, at this point please stop this go-round and move on to anything else.]
posted by taz (staff) at 11:00 PM on July 30, 2016 [24 favorites]


Thank all of you Mefites so much. You inform me, enlighten me and entertain me. I lack the vocabulary to fully express how much I appreciate your insights. Good night.
posted by X4ster at 11:03 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hairspray Trump
Hairspray Trump 2


You left off the most important part: by Pete from Shaun of the Dead and your very own future The Tick. Spooooon!

Sophisticated Trump is even better and doesn't have a making-fun-of-gays vibe
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:11 PM on July 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


“Trump’s smear of Ghazala Khan is despicable. And if you don’t agree, you’re despicable. ”— Bret Stephens (@StephensWSJ) July 31, 2016
posted by ob1quixote at 11:13 PM on July 30, 2016 [8 favorites]


At least some of the Presidential Debate info will be changing, as Wright State dropped out of hosting back during the RNC; some school in NY state (Hofstra, I think?) will host instead.
posted by TwoStride at 11:40 PM on July 30, 2016


"Undecideds" lean Democratic. If these voters embrace Clinton, she'd be at +8.

If the PPP poll is accurate, Kaine for VP looks like a mistake. Hillary didn't need to reach out any further to D-leaning voters who are pro-financial deregulation, pro-TPP and pro "right to work"/anti-union laws.

Meanwhile there were very few opportunities for pre-election actions that could build trust with the Sanders/Warren wing. Attempting to promote someone more liberal/progressive could've helped close the deal with the left and draw in more of its youthful energy. What does Kaine bring to the ticket again?
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 11:52 PM on July 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


maybe we could hold off on declaring kaine a total loss until, i dunno, more than a couple of post-convention polls come out?
posted by murphy slaw at 12:01 AM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]


Kaine brings to the ticket the only effect VP candidates have been shown to have: a couple of points in their home states. It's almost impossible for Trump to win if he can't take Virginia. And Kaine doesn't mean losing a senate seat to the Republicans, which is what most of the other sufficiently experienced candidates meant.

Not to mention, the BoBers were booing and heckling Warren at the convention. The idea that they would view her as 'closing the deal' as opposed to a backstabber seems unsupported.
posted by tavella at 12:02 AM on July 31, 2016 [50 favorites]


> "What does Kaine bring to the ticket again?"

Virginia.
posted by kyrademon at 12:02 AM on July 31, 2016 [26 favorites]


What does Kaine bring to the ticket again?
A white penis.

Giving the disaffected Republicans who "just don't like Hilary for some reason" an excuse in order to secure a landslide isn't condoning the misogyny it's just acknowledging it.
posted by fullerine at 12:03 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Do you think anyone on his staff currently actually gives a shit about him actually winning?

Hope Hicks? I mean, it's in her name. But she's also a TrumpOrg retainer, not a campaign professional.
posted by holgate at 12:04 AM on July 31, 2016


demagogue redux (What We Talk About When We Talk About ‘Demagogues’ - The Atlantic)
posted by gkr at 12:21 AM on July 31, 2016


> What does Kaine bring to the ticket again?

The Onion editors.
posted by mrzarquon at 12:28 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's no coincidence that Demagoguin' is the big bad in that new Strange Things show everybody's watching
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:28 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


regarding Kaine-- I've watched all of their campaign stops from yesterday and today, and while he's still getting used to everything and developing his stump speech, I think he's going to be a very effective campaigner. He's basically telling people, "gosh, I can't believe I'm on the same bus as Hillary and Bill!" and then serving as character witness for them. So, his help with her approval ratings might be more important than the effect of any particular positions. If that was one of the main factors in the VP pick, then it's just a matter of chemistry/personality.
posted by acidic at 12:37 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


oh, interesting. I must pay more attention because I have had some Strange Things being watched around me but had not noted demagoguery.

thanks, prize bull octorok
posted by gkr at 12:47 AM on July 31, 2016




oh, interesting. I must pay more attention because I have had some Strange Things being watched around me but had not noted demagoguery.

He makea the pun; Demogorgon is the big monster from the D&D game in the first episode. At which the level 18 wizard casts fireball and I am still sore about that. Fireball.
posted by Justinian at 12:55 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


soren_lorensen: "Anyone who does actually have any fucks would have been felled by ulcers months ago. The only people left are those who are okay with letting him do whatever the hell he wants."

If you are a professional campaign worker (advisor/ manager/ organiser/ whatever) how does a candidate being so out of control look on your CV? Are you judged poorly for taking the job in the first place or not bailing when the blatant racism comes out? Or are you given points for doing the best you can and sticking with it? Do professionals cross the aisle very often or are they pretty much always staunch party members?

kirkaracha: "The NFL released its 2016-17 schedule on April 15, 2016."

While I get the point that the NFL closed their schedule after the debate schedule had been set anyone who cares about conflicting with the NFL (which don't get me wrong the debate organizers should not care about at all) would know the NFL will have some game on the Sunday and Monday nights in the fall even if they don't know what specific games are going to be played. I'm Canadian and a sport atheist and even I know that (because of Futurama but still). There is no chance American event organizers won't know the pattern.
posted by Mitheral at 2:20 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Football is played Thursday, Sunday, Monday. Friday and Saturday being weekend nights would get the same complaint about trying to hide it, plus Saturday you'd have major college football. That leaves Tuesday and Wednesday. And Yom Kippur takes out Tues and Weds the 11th and 12th. 2012 also had two debates opposite games with no issues and high ratings.
posted by chris24 at 2:58 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


Regarding what Kaine brings, Trump is also doing terrible with Catholics. So if Kaine maintains or accelerates that - with his personal, though not political, abortion beliefs perhaps giving cover to some voters - he maybe adds value there as well.
posted by chris24 at 3:07 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


If the PPP poll is accurate, Kaine for VP looks like a mistake. Hillary didn't need to reach out any further to D-leaning voters who are pro-financial deregulation, pro-TPP and pro "right to work"/anti-union laws.

Not sure it's that simple. The PPP poll is national, but the Electoral College means that national numbers are illustrative, not a promise. If Kaine makes it easier for conservative women in small town Pennsylvania or Ohio to pull the lever for Clinton, then that's the whole election right there.

Of course VP picks don't really matter like that either way, historically.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 4:39 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


So far, Tim Kaine also seems like he's useful for attacking Donald Trump while being kind of untouchable himself. Clinton has a lot of baggage, real or imagined ("Corrupt? Dishonest? We can call you that right back!") but Kaine insulting Trump is like Mr. Rogers or your favorite uncle insulting him.

And he serves the "White guy who can make latent misogynists feel better about voting for a woman" role too, which I think is sadly important this time.
posted by mmoncur at 4:50 AM on July 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


Also it seems like part and parcel of the effort to reclaim all the symbology the Republicans have historically insisted are theirs alone - "support the troops" patriotism, overt Christianity, etc. In any other national election a candidate like Kaine would be attacked for supposedly betraying his faith, but the Trump campaign is the political equivalent of an empty net in hockey. Why not score every goal you can?

(Plus Kaine expressed more positions in his career than the ones you personally don't like)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:58 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


If you are a professional campaign worker (advisor/ manager/ organiser/ whatever) how does a candidate being so out of control look on your CV?

Does he have many professionals on staff?
And people like Manafort can just go back to working for dictators when this is all over.
posted by soren_lorensen at 5:01 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


Meanwhile there were very few opportunities for pre-election actions that could build trust with the Sanders/Warren wing. Attempting to promote someone more liberal/progressive could've helped close the deal with the left and draw in more of its youthful energy.

I expect that for the few dead-enders who are left, rejection of Clinton is axiomatic. They spent the convention booing Sanders and Warren and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't reject Jill Stein or Che Guevara as gutless sellouts if they ran with Clinton.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:16 AM on July 31, 2016 [22 favorites]


Is it just me, or does the Trump Cycle seem to go something like this:

Day One --

1. Trump says something horrible. No, seriously, worse than you could possibly imagine. As a hypothetical, lets' say this one is, "But you've got to hand it to the Chinese -- their babies are delicious. Really, delicious babies, believe me."

2. Later that night, Trump doubles down on it with a tweet. "Chinese baby heaarts, you've got to try them. Grate, grate food."

Day Two --

3. One member of the Trump camp denies it ever happened. "What he actually said was that Chinese babies are *delicate*. I think we can agree that all babies are delicate, can't we?"

4. Another member of the Trump camp defends it. "I would think the Chinese would be complimented to know how tasty Donald Trump considers their babies."

Day Three, if it has not yet already blown over --

5. A prominent conservative attempts to distance himself without actually repudiating the candidate. "Speaker Ryan is already on record as saying that Chinese babies are not food."

6. Someone obviously not Trump writes something under Trump's name which is not an apology. "I have nothing but boundless respect for the Chinese people."

Day Four --

7. Trump says something horrible. No, seriously, worse than you could possibly imagine.
posted by kyrademon at 5:42 AM on July 31, 2016 [88 favorites]




Somewhere around day 4, the media interviews Trump voters. "Chinese babies are just going to grow up and take our jobs! At least Trump is DOING SOMETHING! Crooked Hillary probably eats white American babies!"
posted by AFABulous at 5:50 AM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


Somewhere around day 4, the media interviews Trump voters. "Chinese babies are just going to grow up and take our jobs! At least Trump is DOING SOMETHING! Crooked Hillary probably eats white American babies!"

"Have we even see Hillary eat a white American baby? She thinks she's too good to eat our best babies!"

/derail
posted by Servo5678 at 5:53 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


So, yeah. A conservative client of mine was crowing about Nate Silver's latest post and making a snide comment about how "Grannie needed to throw Jill Stein under the bus" and how "Democrats were panicking." Uh, yeah. (This guy likes to troll.) Thoughts, MeFites?
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 5:57 AM on July 31, 2016


As free-market dogmatics, conservatives should look to the market to assess their candidate's chances, especially the betting markets. They show low odds for Trump right now.
posted by cell divide at 5:59 AM on July 31, 2016


Having been in a room with 6000 other Democrats yesterday, I can't really say panic was the dominant emotion.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:00 AM on July 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


Though honestly if you're not panicking on a personal level even a little about a possible Trump presidency, you're just as much of an anti-social asshole as he is.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:02 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Soren, that seems kind of harsh. I've been donating to HRC's campaign and talking up her chances as much as I can (including to a receptive friend in PA just this morning). Trump becoming the president is so awful I can't even imagine it.
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 6:07 AM on July 31, 2016


Though honestly if you're not panicking on a personal level even a little about a possible Trump presidency, you're just as much of an anti-social asshole as he is.

I'm still in a subdued freak-out that he's actually the 2016 GOP candidate, which is bad enough even without considering his possible presidency.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:12 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Thoughts, MeFites?

Fire your client? I don't know if I've ever felt better in my life than when I told an asshole client I didn't want to work with them anymore.
posted by chris24 at 6:14 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


So, yeah. A conservative client of mine was crowing about Nate Silver's latest post and making a snide comment about how "Grannie needed to throw Jill Stein under the bus" and how "Democrats were panicking." Uh, yeah. (This guy likes to troll.) Thoughts, MeFites?

Current forecast is 56.8% for Hillary. What's he crowing about?
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:16 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


Please please stop with the baby stuff - it's just a really disturbing image I don't want to imagine.
posted by rainydayfilms at 6:17 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm pretty confident that Trump hasn't even begun to truly implode yet. The statements about the Khan family are just the start.
posted by octothorpe at 6:17 AM on July 31, 2016 [15 favorites]


I'm pretty confident that Trump hasn't even begun to truly implode yet

The debates are a poison pill for Trump -- either he goes and embarasses himself, or he refuses to debate and embarasses himself.

Or best/worst of both worlds, he agrees to multiple debates, flubs the first one, and then backs out of the rest.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:21 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


A conservative client of mine was crowing about Nate Silver's latest post

So if you need this client, smile politely and say something noncommittal and come here to vicariously scream at him and slap him with a metaphorical trout.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:21 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


ROU_Xenophobe, that is definitely the plan
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 6:29 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


NYTImes: The Path to Prosperity Is Blue
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:39 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Please please stop with the baby stuff - it's just a really disturbing image I don't want to imagine.

why do you love Trump
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:43 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump gets briefly stuck in an elevator.
"This is why our country doesn't work," Trump said as he slammed the Colorado Springs fire marshal during the rally, moments after the department's firefighters rescued him. The paper reported that Trump said the fire marshal "didn't know what he was doing and 'was probably a Democrat.' "
Best comments so far:

I like people that weren't trapped in elevators

Yeah, only losers get trapped in elevators. It has never happened to me. Maybe Trump doesn't know how to work an elevator, or maybe he made it stop to trap the people inside it with him. You tell me.
posted by Talez at 6:50 AM on July 31, 2016 [21 favorites]


- Why it's going to be a close election. -

"This election is never likely to turn out to be the sort of landslide for Clinton that some expected a year or 6 months ago because Trump voters just hate Clinton too much for that to ever happen. For instance on this poll we find that 74% of Trump voters think Clinton should be in prison, to only 12% who disagree. By a 66/22 margin they say Clinton is a bigger threat to the United States than Russia. And 33% think Clinton even has ties to Lucifer, to 36% who say they don't think so, and 31% who are unsure either way. Against that set of findings it's simply not very likely that many Trump voters will be moving into the Clinton column and that's why although she's certainly the favorite the chances of her winning a double digit victory are pretty minimal."

*my bold
posted by chris24 at 6:55 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


The fire marshall put a stop to people getting into the Clinton event yesterday, shutting out hundreds, if not thousands. Mike Doyle in his warm up speech gave a shout out to those of us in overflow and those who couldn't get in. We cheered. Nothing more was said about it and people in line and in overflow were exceptionally good natured given that we'd all waited for literally hours (I listened to all of Purple Rain and all of Stop Making Sense and a bunch of podcasts while in line) to get in. The contrast between these two campaigns is so stark, I don't understand how this is a close race.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:57 AM on July 31, 2016 [16 favorites]


Trump's Twitter feed is on the warpath against the Khans this morning.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:57 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


"When I'm elected, it's going to stop. We will have walls around all these elevators. Walls with ladders so people can go up. No longer are people going to be trapped by these things."
posted by pyramid termite at 6:58 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump's Twitter feed is on the warpath against the Khans this morning.

I knew he wouldn't be able to help himself. And it's only going to get worse, because the speech wasn't that much of a direct attack. But Khan on Meet the Press just said Trump has a black soul. Donald isn't going to be able to stop. Could this be the straw if it keeps escalating?
posted by chris24 at 7:07 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


It will be interesting to see if something of national import happens, but Trump continues to focus on personal slights from Mr & Mrs Khan.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 7:10 AM on July 31, 2016


Meanwhile, Hillary's Twitter folks had the good sense to re-tweet John Kasich.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:11 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Washington Post just publish an opinion piece by Ghazala Khan in response to Trump.

Ghazala Khan: Trump criticized my silence. He knows nothing about true sacrifice.

posted by airish at 7:12 AM on July 31, 2016 [26 favorites]


I do hope the Khans stay safe, though. Trump yelling RADICAL ISLAMICIST TERRORISTS every time he mentions their name could be taken as a turbulent priest request by the frothers.
posted by Devonian at 7:16 AM on July 31, 2016 [16 favorites]


We're at the "punch yourself in the arm to forget about the pain in your knee" stage of the campaign, where Trump's continued attacks on the Khans is covering up the fact that this morning he first stated that if he were President, Russia wouldn't consider invading Ukraine. When it was pointed out that they had already done so, he parroted the Russian line on Crimea, claiming that most Crimeans wanted to be Russian anyway, so what's the big deal.

Thank god I'm over draft eligible age. There will be a major global conflict if he is elected.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:22 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


Thoughts, MeFites?

However much you've ever worked on a campaign before, double it this year. Walk up and down your street. Anybody who is a Hillary supporter, make for damn sure that they vote this year. That's about it.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:24 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


> "We're at the 'punch yourself in the arm to forget about the pain in your knee' stage of the campaign ..."

It is really, really hard for me to believe that "insult the grieving parents of a war hero" plays better than ... anything. At all.
posted by kyrademon at 7:27 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


It is really, really hard for me to believe that "insult the grieving parents of a war hero" plays better than ... anything. At all.

I guess my point is that his Russian comments would be Drudge-siren level "this man is crazy and dangerous" headline-worthy, if it weren't for the fact that he cannot help himself from attacking the family of a war hero.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:29 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


It is really, really hard for me to believe that "insult the grieving parents of a war hero" plays better than ... anything. At all.

At least some people will see this as Trump vs. Muslim, Trump wins.
posted by argybarg at 7:38 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump's surrogate said on MSNBC this morning that Khan put himself out there by giving a speech at the DNC and so he is fair game for Trump to criticize and defend himself against. They're doubling down on this madness.
posted by gatorae at 7:39 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Thank god I'm over draft eligible age. There will be a major global conflict if he is elected.

My son is 22. I guess I'd better sign up to phone bank for HRC.
posted by puddledork at 7:40 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Not American, but I've noticed the same with many others here: many are saying that they didn't realize how much of their opinion of Hillary has been created by right-wing propaganda. Even if one is left-leaning.
I definitely have a completely different image of her now, and I even read one of her auto-biographies last winter.

So maybe it's worth it to engage with people - ask them why they think Hillary is evil, where did they get that information, and are those sources reliable? Ask them to think if some of the hate might be sexist. I know there are some conservative, pearl-clutching grannies out there who would give that a second thought (though they might do it in private). I know because my gran did that in a very similar situation.

Obviously, she is establishment and elite. You can't take that out of her. But claiming that in itself is damning is absurd, when you are about to elect the president of the USA. Anyone who is a serious contender is to some extent establishment and elite, and that includes Bernie Sanders. And Donald Trump.

I don't like political families, but they exist everywhere, and no-one seems to hold it against Robert Kennedy that he was the brother of John.

Lots of the people who claim to hate Hillary Clinton haven't been watching the Democratic convention, and they haven't yet noticed the crazy of Trump. Last night on TV I saw a couple being interviewed about Trump, and while the husband was a typical ignorant and racist Trump-voter, I felt the wife can and will move during these months, if she gets just a little more information.
posted by mumimor at 7:46 AM on July 31, 2016 [12 favorites]




where did they get that information, and are those sources reliable?

Radical conservative voters believe that all mainstream media has a liberal bias (except Fox News). It really doesn't matter how many sources you throw at them.
posted by AFABulous at 7:49 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


The debates are a poison pill for Trump -- either he goes and embarasses himself, or he refuses to debate and embarasses himself.

Ugh, didn't you watch the primary debates?

The most likely scenario is this:
He goes into the debates with really, really low expectations, manages not to physically attack the other candidate or the moderators, all the while gettting in a witty jab or two (we know he thinks quick on his feet), and all the media declares that he "outdid expectations" or even won the debates.

He'll do that while raising his finger and his voice and saying some really nasty things to Clinton's face and his poll numbers will rise another three percent. Meanwhile Clinton will say something stupid such as "it's time to put a woman in charge" and her poll numbers will drop three percent.
posted by sour cream at 7:52 AM on July 31, 2016 [13 favorites]


The Party Platform Democrats Won't Stand On
To get a sense of how much the Democratic Party platform affects actual policy, let's take a look at some of the more progressive planks from the 2008 platform passed by the convention that nominated Barack Obama and see how they have fared under the Obama administration.
...
Yet now, the Democrats, led by Bernie Sanders, are asking us to vote for Hillary Clinton because she'll make a "wonderful president," in Sanders' words -- and if you have any doubts, just look at "the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party" she agreed to.

We've heard that one before.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:05 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Party Platform Democrats Won't Stand On

You know who definitely won't do anything on that platform? Trump.
posted by chris24 at 8:08 AM on July 31, 2016 [47 favorites]


Salon: The moral case for Hillary Clinton: Even if you might dislike her, this isn’t the year to back a third-party candidate Presidential elections aren’t just about principles; they’re about human lives.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:08 AM on July 31, 2016 [13 favorites]


Let's complain about it AFTER preventing the apocalypse, okay?
posted by odinsdream at 8:08 AM on July 31, 2016 [12 favorites]


... Because we've had zero progress under Obama, right?
posted by stolyarova at 8:09 AM on July 31, 2016 [27 favorites]


Hillary Clinton will reset Syria policy against 'murderous' Assad regime
Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.

Jeremy Bash, who served as chief of staff for the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency, said Mrs Clinton would both escalate the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and work to get Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, "out of there".
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:09 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Party Platform Democrats Won't Stand On

We've heard that one before.


Why do people write this shit knowing the makeup of the four congresses during the Barack Obama administration?

We had six months of Democratic hegemony and it was all spent on the ACA and even then we had blue dogs constraining it. I'm really not sure what they expected Democrats to do the rest of the time with the House operating in lockstep and slapping down anything with a D on the co-sponsor.
posted by Talez at 8:09 AM on July 31, 2016 [41 favorites]


Simple Talez, it fits their narrative. Even on he left, facts are starting* to not matter.

*starting is arguable
posted by JakeEXTREME at 8:13 AM on July 31, 2016 [13 favorites]


Yes, but - the Democrat planners saw those primaries too. They know what they're dealing with. Why would HRC 'say something stupid'?

They know that Trump will not and cannot answer any substantive questions, and will do- - as Countess Elena astutely observed upthread - the Gish Gallop when it's his turn to speak. There's no point in treating it like a turn-by-turn debate: you decide who the audience is you need to reach, and use techniques like grouping to wrap up the gallop as concisely as possible before negating it succinctly and then getting your points out. You pick one thing to pivot on (and Trump will provide many), get the jab in and then move on to be positive - so on the economy, point out Trump's very flaky finances and how can you trust a man to set fiscal policy when he's the only candidate for 40 years to hide his tax returns from the voters? Economists say his plans would be disasterfor the working family, but we have a great plan, the best, that will make your life so much better. You don't have to trust us - it's all out there. Check it yourself.

Clinton can do that. The hard part will be finding someone who can go the full Trump in rehersal; I think they're going to need a top-flight improv actor or stand-up.
posted by Devonian at 8:18 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


Russia Expert Stephen Cohen on CNN
Cohen says the media at large is doing a huge disservice to the American people by ignoring the substance of Trump's arguments about NATO and Russia, and buying the Clinton campaign's simplistic smear that Trump is a Russian "Manchurian candidate."

"That reckless branding of Trump as a Russian agent, most of it is coming from the Clinton campaign," Cohen said. "And they really need to stop."

"We're approaching a Cuban Missile Crisis level nuclear confrontation with Russia," he explained. "And there is absolutely no discussion, no debate, about this in the American media."
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:19 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton can do that. The hard part will be finding someone who can go the full Trump in rehersal; I think they're going to need a top-flight improv actor or stand-up.

Wasn't that Tim Kaine's job?
posted by Talez at 8:19 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm kind of curious as to what the point of divebombing the thread with editorials and a brief quote is NPB. Are these supposed to be talking points for others to talk about? I thought we tried to discourage linkfilter.
posted by vuron at 8:23 AM on July 31, 2016 [26 favorites]


vuron 4 mefi prez!
posted by Talez at 8:24 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump won't do the Gish Gallop, he'll do the Trump Dump, where he says a whole series of statements so appallingly stupid the mind cannot process them and so cannot respond. He'll say three mutually contradictory things as loudly as possible and with testosterone in his throat.

I mad this point a few days ago, but Trump is a class abuser, of the kind that destroys families by making mutually sane responses impossible. Anyone with experience with a deeply crazy, scary family member will know how much damage is done simply by inducing the sane family members to argue with the abuser in their heads.

No one ever wins an argument with an abuser of that sort -- he has to kicked out immediately, no contact, restraining order. But we can't do that until November, and the debate moderators can't just kick him off the stage.
posted by argybarg at 8:26 AM on July 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


joyce carol oates just compared trump to slenderman
so that happened.
this fuckin year, man
posted by murphy slaw at 8:32 AM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]


>: "Trump said as he slammed the Colorado Springs fire marshal during the rally, moments after the department's firefighters rescued him. The paper reported that Trump said the fire marshal "didn't know what he was doing and 'was probably a Democrat.' ""

I just love this quote; every time I see it I think "Well if he wasn't before he probably is now. Or at least he will be voting for the Democratic candidate." This rant basically insulted the professionalism of Fire Marshalls everywhere and professionals hate that. Fire fighters tend to be passionate about this sort of safety thing and Trump just blew them off at best.

Contradicting things people know with every fiber of their being is a uniquely dangerous way of getting people to rethink support of your candidacy. When you say something stupid like "Mexico will pay for our wall", well practically no one has the personal stake to point out how looney that is. But if you say something that specifically calls out something like maximum occupancy then the people who set and enforce that limit are going to know you are speaking out of your ass and that is a sizable group of voters. To then insult those people? Yep, that's how you lose supporters. Even if they don't flip it keeps them at home because they don't want to vote for the asshole.
posted by Mitheral at 8:34 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


Ah, yes, "Russia Expert" Stephen Cohen:
[A]s the hostilities in eastern Ukraine have turned to the tragedy of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Cohen is at it again—this time, with a long article in the current issue of The Nation indicting “Kiev’s atrocities” in eastern Ukraine and America’s collusion therein. The timing is rather unfortunate for Cohen and The Nation, since the piece is also unabashedly sympathetic to the Russian-backed militants who appear responsible for the murder of 298 innocent civilians.
[...]
It is embarrassing to see Cohen—once a serious scholar whose work was praised by the likes of British historian Robert Conquest—sink to the level of repeating Russian misinformation; it is no less of an embarrassment that The Nation would print something so shoddy. One likely element of truth in Cohen’s account is that Putin is indeed feeling the pressure of public sentiment in favor of saving Ukraine’s ethnic Russians from the “fascist junta”—not because of actual Kiev atrocities, but because the Kremlin has wound up a propaganda machine it cannot stop. By recycling this propaganda and giving it the imprimatur of a respectable American magazine, Cohen and The Nation are not doing Russia, or anyone, any favors.
Calling him a "Russia Expert" is like calling David Duke "Jim Crow Expert" or Milo Yiannopolous "Harassment Expert." This latest column is as incoherent as his previous ones.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:34 AM on July 31, 2016 [21 favorites]


The Party Platform Democrats Won't Stand On

Eh. You know, it's easy to look at stuff like this and wring your hands about it but honestly if you particularly care what Socialist Worker has to say you were never ever going to vote for any Democrat and were always just going to keep on being the fringe.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:35 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]



joyce carol oates just compared trump to slenderman

What the hell is happening there?
posted by bongo_x at 8:36 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thoughts, MeFites?

Dude sounds like an asshole.
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:39 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Cohen's premise is that Trump is making a circuitous but coherent proposal for detente with Russia, a conclusion he arrives at by parsing The Donald's words like an evangelical Christian looking for Rapture prophecies in the Bible. The only thing more disappointing than somebody with a college degree doing that in public, is Glenn Greenwald taking him seriously.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:41 AM on July 31, 2016 [25 favorites]


Why do people write this shit knowing the makeup of the four congresses during the Barack Obama administration?

Two points - on the politics, I heard so little at the Dem Convention about Republican obstructionism. Ds decided to basically own the economy and talk instead about how hard change is and how slow, incremental progress takes effort and compromise. It may have been a mistake not to try to channel some of the anger about economic hardship towards the Republican Party and their plan to wreck the economy for electoral gain.

Second, and I know it's controversial, but I think progressives/liberals should consider what centrist Democratic leadership, including by Obama and Clinton, has contributed to the rise of American right wing populism. The truthout.org article is correct that Obama did not prioritize the 2008 D party platform's commitment to a public option or to poverty reduction, compared to, say, deficit reduction. The D's contribution is certainly smaller than the GOP's, but pushing back against centrism in the D leadership should be the goal of any progressive who's serious about combatting American right wing authoritarianism in the long term. I believe that includes pushing back against the promotion of someone as economically conservative as Tim Kaine.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 8:43 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Why is pragmatism such a dirty concept for the political extremes anyway?
posted by Talez at 8:45 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


Calling him a "Russia Expert" is like calling David Duke "Jim Crow Expert" or Milo Yiannopolous "Harassment Expert."

Wut.

This guy has devoted his life to studying Russia. He's a professor at Princeton and NYU on the subject. What Ivy League professorship does Yiannopolous hold?

And, if I may say so, stooping to dismissing him as a Putin propagandist -- seriously, the article you linked to is entitled "Putin’s Pal" -- is participating in the distasteful neo-McCarthyite smears that Cohen was lamenting the Clinton campaign keeps propagating. It's not a good look.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:49 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


because the pragmatics aren't getting enough done for this time and place?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:49 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


And, if I may say so, stooping to dismissing him as a Putin propagandist -- seriously, the article you linked to is entitled "Putin’s Pal" -- is participating in the distasteful neo-McCarthyite smears that Cohen was lamenting the Clinton campaign keeps propagating. It's not a good look.


And of course continuing to attack the Democratic campaign when we are fighting against an opponent who is literally attacking Muslims because of their religion is a particularly good look.
posted by peacheater at 8:51 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


Why is pragmatism such a dirty concept for the political extremes anyway?

Probably because it's constantly invoked as an all-purpose excuse for hosing voters, especially on the left.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 8:52 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Cohen's premise is that Trump is making a circuitous but coherent proposal for detente with Russia, a conclusion he arrives at by parsing The Donald's words like an evangelical Christian looking for Rapture prophecies in the Bible.

Hey now. You can construct a reasonable opinion on the Rapture from the Bible because, well, the Bible is reasonably coherent. I believe the metaphor you're looking for is "like some Alex Jones listener who thinks they can apply the Bible Code to Webster's Dictionary expecting to find who did 9/11."
posted by dw at 8:53 AM on July 31, 2016


Yeah, but the reasonable opinion you can draw is "the Bible doesn't mention the Rapture." It's entirely invented by people who wanted to find it -- Not unlike the Alex Jones Bible code.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:55 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


On Trumps stances on Russian politics, it just seems to me that he's making very clear suggestions. There really isn't much room to debate those stances without taking a side. Leave NATO, yes or no? Support Ukraine, yes or no? Crimean independence, yes or no?

If your stance is we have to look at the situation then it isn't really out of place to have the opposite opinion of Trump. Regardless of how anyone feels though, his statements exclusively are favorable to Russia.

Maybe if Cohen was suggesting that the discussion needs to be deeper then I could understand but it comes across more as "Trump's right guys, why can't you see it!?"
posted by JakeEXTREME at 8:59 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump later said of Russia, "they're not going to go into Ukraine," which....yeah. Part for the course at this point.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:01 AM on July 31, 2016


Cohen is blinded by the debate he would like to have - he, not Trump, wants to have a serious conversation about NATO's role and relationship to Russia. He wants to have this conversation so badly that he is willing to find evidence of a policy in Trump's incoherent mess.

Cohen is also making the claim that the majority of the Trump-as-Russian-agent stuff is coming from the Clinton campaign. I'd like to see him back that up. So far I've seen strong criticism of Trump's NATO position from the campaign, and lots of surrogates talking about (1) Trump being too pro-Russia and (2) Russia trying to influence a US election through selective hacking and leaking. That does not equate to the Clinton campaign calling Trump a Russian agent.

He also dramatically underplays the evidence that the Russians are behind the hack - he treats that like a conspiracy theory, while I think the evidence is fairly close to air-tight.
posted by Chanther at 9:03 AM on July 31, 2016 [31 favorites]


The most likely scenario is this:
He goes into the debates with really, really low expectations, manages not to physically attack the other candidate or the moderators, all the while gettting in a witty jab or two (we know he thinks quick on his feet), and all the media declares that he "outdid expectations" or even won the debates.


I think the worm has turned on this one. The primary debates were completely different, given party constraints. HRC can just ridicule him if he won't engage on substance. And if he does, it'll be incoherent.


He'll do that while raising his finger and his voice and saying some really nasty things to Clinton's face and his poll numbers will rise another three percent.


This only appeals to certain segment of even the GOP's voters. They're already voting Trump.


Meanwhile Clinton will say something stupid such as "it's time to put a woman in charge" and her poll numbers will drop three percent.


Not everyone is predisposed to think that's stupid. Like, at least about 50% of the country.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:05 AM on July 31, 2016 [14 favorites]


Probably because it's constantly invoked as an all-purpose excuse for hosing voters, especially on the left.

How does not doing the pragmatic thing here (voting for Clinton) help the left? If Clinton doesn't get elected and Trump becomes President, do you think there will be more or less support for left-wing policies? Four years from now, are we more or less likely to have left-wing proposals become sellable to the population? After four years of Bush, when Nader spoiled the 2000 election, did the country suddenly realize the error of its ways and elect left-wing politicians?

I am of the left. I consider myself committed to left-wing principles. I would love a single-payer option. I consider the fact that so many people live in poverty in this, the richest nation in the world, honestly insane. But a certain segment of the left seems to have left the reality-based community and it is honestly really hard to see. On the one hand you have a woman who has consistently fought for the rights of women and children, backed a single payer option when it was political suicide to do so, nearly doubled the minimum wage when she was Senator of New York and taken three decades of crap from the right along the way. On the other hand we have a thin-skinned buffoon who doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself. If you don't want Trump to become President, why are you helping him? Even if you are not in a battleground state, every time you post on here or on Facebook with these constant attacks on Clinton, you are convincing other voters, who are in battleground states, that there is a legitimate reason not to vote for Clinton, thereby increasing the chances that Trump will become President. There are only two options in this election, and one of them is going to become President of the United States.
posted by peacheater at 9:06 AM on July 31, 2016 [72 favorites]


Not everyone is predisposed to think that's stupid. Like, at least about 50% of the country.

I wish that were true, but internalized sexism is unfortunately a thing.
posted by peacheater at 9:07 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


The only thing more disappointing than somebody with a college degree doing that in public, is Glenn Greenwald taking him seriously.

It doesn't surprise me even slightly. Since the beginning of this election cycle, Greenwald has been not just willing but downright eager to amplify almost any voice that is critical of Clinton and/or her campaign.

He's probably thrilled to have this opportunity with Cohen, since even Greenwald's most ardently blinkered fans might look askance at him if he seemed to be agreeing with Trump's positions.

This way, he can just point to smart college professor guy and just kind of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
posted by dersins at 9:12 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


"We're approaching a Cuban Missile Crisis level nuclear confrontation with Russia," he explained. "And there is absolutely no discussion, no debate, about this in the American media."

That's because it isn't true. Russia is not the USSR, and there is no nuclear crisis.

We're hearing this because it's time to modernize the missile fleet.

Which we probably do need to spend serious money on, but there's no need for Strangelove level scare tactics.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:12 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


The contrast between these two campaigns is so stark, I don't understand how this is a close race.

Whenever you find yourself asking this, the answer is always "Lots and lots of anglos hold appallingly racist attitudes."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:18 AM on July 31, 2016 [16 favorites]


A lot of people really seem to want to make excuses for Trump, and find things to criticize about Clinton. If you think yourself to be on the left and find you criticize Clinton more than Trump you might want to think about that. This should not be a close race, this should not even be a discussion. The fact that it is makes me think something is wrong with the world. I have long thought that we were near a turning point without really having a concrete reason to think that, but here it is.

I'm not 20 years old, I don't have kids. I will work for the Clinton campaign and do everything I can, but if enough people want to argue themselves into ruin in this country then so be it. I can find somewhere to spend the rest of my days.

Everyone should realize that this might be a moment in history that you'll have to account for. I won't have to lie about what I did and who I supported.
posted by bongo_x at 9:19 AM on July 31, 2016 [58 favorites]


There is a valid argument to be made that NATO needs to be subject to a reevaluating process.

However shaking down the Baltic republics for protection money like a mafia don is not a solid process.
posted by vuron at 9:22 AM on July 31, 2016 [12 favorites]


If Trump wins, racism will be a part. Mostly, though, I think it would be out of a kind of collective self-destructive phenomenon, a temper tantrum and urge for morbid entertainment. That + the almost primal drive to follow the Strong Man could be enough.
posted by argybarg at 9:29 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


There is a valid argument to be made that NATO needs to be subject to a reevaluating process.

However shaking down the Baltic republics for protection money like a mafia don is not a solid process.


With respect, this plays into Trump's tiny little hands. Someone could dismiss your second sentence, because the first one lends his idiotic words credence.

Phrasing is going to play a large part in how we deal with this election - you'll have to think about how ANYTHING you say can be interpreted to support a racist, sexist, bigoted point of view, even when you think you're supporting progressive ideas.

I say this as someone who has had to watch his words very closely with an outspoken Republican who is waffling on whether or not Trump represents a Bad Thing.
posted by Mooski at 9:32 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


If I'm getting the timeline correct, Trump insulted the fire marshal after the fire department rescued him from the elevator. Sad!
posted by kirkaracha at 9:33 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


How does not doing the pragmatic thing here (voting for Clinton) help the left?

I'm undecided myself, like millions of voters who are being dismissed on the Blue as "a few dead enders". For non-swing state voters like me, going Green might signal to the D Party that they should move left if they want my vote in future. You mentioned only Hillary's positive record, which is important and highlighted here often. But I would be balancing out that record with her Iraq War vote, pursuing a world-wide fracking initiative and promoting for-profit rip-off colleges as SoS, her bankruptcy bill votes, etc. Her record is overall mixed.

Clinton's latest move was to promote to VP -in 2016- a pro-Wall Street deregulator. All this talk of Kaine as Mr. Rogers is glossing over the history of D centrists helping wreck the world economy by deregulating the financial sector in the late 90s, where populist anger over the economy is currently fueling right wing authoritarianism.

I believe progressives and liberals who are serious about curbing American right wing authoritarianism in the long term should plan to push back against overly conservative D leadership. What's your plan?
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 9:34 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


[Mark] Cuban called out Donald Trump, saying, "Leadership is not yelling and screaming and intimidating. You know what we call a person like that in Pittsburgh? A jagoff," Cuban continued. "Is there any bigger jagoff in the world than Donald Trump?"
posted by kirkaracha at 9:38 AM on July 31, 2016 [18 favorites]


I believe progressives and liberals who are serious about curbing American right wing authoritarianism in the long term should plan to push back against overly conservative D leadership. What's your plan?

Pressing for term limits and campaign finance reform, as soon as we make sure 2016's version of Mussolini doesn't get into the White House.
posted by Mooski at 9:39 AM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


Trump later said of Russia, "they're not going to go into Ukraine," which....yeah. Part for the course at this point.

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, (which is perhaps what you're talking about) he not only said "they're not going to go into Ukraine" but also simultaneously that Russia "took Crimea" and that he'd heard that the people in Crimea wanted to join Russia of their own accord.

Sudeten Crisis
, appeasement, etc.
posted by XMLicious at 9:40 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


airing nerdy laundry:

For starters, which outcome would you prefer: Clinton wins, or Trump wins?
posted by argybarg at 9:40 AM on July 31, 2016 [14 favorites]


What's your plan?

Electing a more liberal Congress, as soon as we make sure 2016's version of Mussolini doesn't get into the White House and put his cronies on the Supreme Court.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:40 AM on July 31, 2016 [37 favorites]


If you want to move the Dems left, rewarding them for adopting their most progressive platform ever would be a good start.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:44 AM on July 31, 2016 [78 favorites]


going Green might signal to the D Party that they should move left if they want my vote in future

This "signaling" dodge is more voter-as-consumer nonsense. By your own logic, your vote in a non-swing state can not possibly materially affect the outcome, so why would Democrats feel compelled to pay attention to the fact that the Greens got a few extra tenths of a percentage point there?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:45 AM on July 31, 2016 [41 favorites]


> "For non-swing state voters like me, going Green might signal to the D Party that they should move left if they want my vote in future."

I think the main argument against this is that historically, it tends not to work. The Democratic Party has generally seen the far left abandoning them as a signal to try to recruit voters from the center. The Democratic Party moves further left when the left stays involved and engaged.

I actually think the successes of the Sanders campaign in influencing the current Democratic Party platform and rhetoric is a great example of this -- he ran as a Democrat, not an independent. I think, and the past suggests, that if his voters stick with the party now they're going to get a lot more of what they want out of it.
posted by kyrademon at 9:49 AM on July 31, 2016 [72 favorites]


Is there really no form of activism that would advance the causes of the Left during Hillary's presidency?
posted by argybarg at 9:50 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


More on signaling. In fact all you are signaling is you are a untrustworthy voter whose refusal to accept a party's moving in your direction unless it is 100%. As much as it's hard to remember, at their core, parties ARE their voting members.
posted by aspo at 9:51 AM on July 31, 2016 [33 favorites]


The signalling occurred via Sanders. Now it is time to solidify the leftward gains.
posted by zyxwvut at 9:52 AM on July 31, 2016 [21 favorites]


So there's some psychology here that I think is important and one reason a progressive might argue for "compromising" and voting for Clinton over a third party ("compromising" in quotes because all candidates are compromises, president often the most).

It turns out if you do something for someone, you feel more engaged and often want to interact again (assuming the experience was not awful). If you vote third party, the inevitable outcome right now is that your candidate will not have won and you won't have given the main thing you have to give to the candidate who does. The candidate you voted for owes you at least in small amount which might help you stay engaged (for example voting and campaigning in mid-terms) in order to make that vote count.

Voting third party means you've already in some sense washed your hands of engaging. They don't owe you and you don't owe them (they being Clinton and the Democrats). Sure it's possible to still campaign heavily and work for progressive values but the psychology is working against you in our system where it's very hard for third parties to gain traction. Our system rewards people and ideas that stay engaged in the main parties, taking them over and transforming them.

This is not an argument for anyone here. I'm offering it as an angle towards viewing why people compromise - and how to talk about it with fence sitters.
posted by R343L at 9:58 AM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


So, yeah. A conservative client of mine was crowing about Nate Silver's latest post and making a snide comment about how "Grannie needed to throw Jill Stein under the bus" and how "Democrats were panicking." Uh, yeah. (This guy likes to troll.) Thoughts, MeFites?

Raise your rate (tack on an asshole tax) and donate the increase to the campaigns of your preferred candidate(s).
posted by jamaro at 10:02 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Clinton campaign just asked me for $72. I don't know fit hey are trying to work me down from the previous request of $84, but I need an option to say "hey, I'm volunteering next weekend, hit me up for money again in a month."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:02 AM on July 31, 2016


Clinton's latest move was to promote to VP -in 2016- a pro-Wall Street deregulator.

My point is proved again. If you are going to cite something as a reason for your hatred of Clinton, get it right. Kaine requested that Yellen exempt regional banks and credit unions/community banks from some of the regulations that the big national banks are under, in terms of reporting daily liquidity and so on. Now, you can disagree with that -- some of the regional banks and credit unions can still be pretty big even if they wouldn't have the same world-wide impact as the big nationals -- but they are not 'Wall Street'. When people spew junk like this, I know that they haven't actually paid much attention to Kaine, but just got some pre-chewed line that they are repeating.
posted by tavella at 10:03 AM on July 31, 2016 [87 favorites]


"hit me up for money again in a month."

In my experience you don't need to worry about that.
posted by bongo_x at 10:04 AM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]


bongo_x, truth, I think I meant, "don't hit me up for ridiculous amounts of money for awhile."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:06 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


...going Green might signal to the D Party...

Understand that I laughed out loud at this. A lot.

The Green Party is a complete joke. They matter in literally no way. I promise you no one in the Democratic Party structure gives any thought to them at all, much less looking at voting turnout as part of any sort of decision tree.
posted by odinsdream at 10:06 AM on July 31, 2016 [32 favorites]


Donald Trump's campaign works on the same principle as Montgomery Burns's immune system. It's overflowing with things that would normally be able to take down a campaign, but since there's just so many of them it's impossible for the media and the public to focus on any of them long enough to actually take down the campaign.
posted by ckape at 10:06 AM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


...wow, the Hillary phone banking tool is amazingly well done.
posted by odinsdream at 10:12 AM on July 31, 2016




What's your plan?
I think the left could start by working to undo some of the damage that the Sanders campaign has done with voters of color. They are not incidental to your project. You cannot succeed without them. "The left" did not fail in this election because of some sort of evil DNC scheming. You failed because you didn't convince the majority of voters in the Democratic primaries that your candidate was the best one. If you want to win, you need to convince people that you're right and competent and trustworthy, which is a matter of building relationships in communities. And having a President Trump is not going to help with any of that.

We also desperately need to undo Citizens United, but again, President Trump's Supreme Court nominees are not going to do that.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:15 AM on July 31, 2016 [22 favorites]


Can phone banking be done by someone who lives out-of-country but has an internet connection? I've been thinking that maybe I should do more than contribute money this year.
posted by kyrademon at 10:16 AM on July 31, 2016


"Trump later said of Russia, "they're not going to go into Ukraine," which....yeah. Part for the course at this point."

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, (which is perhaps what you're talking about) he not only said "they're not going to go into Ukraine" but also simultaneously that Russia "took Crimea" and that he'd heard that the people in Crimea wanted to join Russia of their own accord.


C&L has the clip: Trump Insists Putin Isn't 'In Ukraine' And Would Never Invade It
posted by homunculus at 10:18 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


"I can't decide how to vote on whether we should all eat shit or ice cream. I mean, it's chocolate ice cream so they're both brown, pretty much the same. And chocolate is not my favorite flavor. Maybe shit doesn't taste as bad a you think? Maybe I'll just sit here and eat jelly beans to send a signal that they shouldn't have gone with chocolate, even though I'm still going to have to eat the shit or ice cream that other people chose."
posted by bongo_x at 10:18 AM on July 31, 2016 [31 favorites]


For non-swing state voters like me, going Green might signal to the D Party that they should move left if they want my vote in future.

Nope. They are savvy enough to know that if someone is comparing a party that has to make governing decisions to one that can just issue pie-in-the-sky ideals that are never forced to meet reality, much less political compromise to see at least partial enactment, they are always, always, always going to find some excuse for why Democrats are not pure enough and are never, ever, ever going to be part of their coalition.

This is true in the generic sense and doubly true this year when the Democrats have taken a large step to the left. Going Green this year, if it tells them anything, only tells them how many people they'll never be able to reach no matter what they do.

Is there really no form of activism that would advance the causes of the Left during Hillary's presidency?

Of course there is. Show up in every general election and vote for the Democrat. When it's reasonable to think that a more progressive Democrat might win the election for some office, show up in the primary election and vote for that more progressive candidate. If there isn't that more progressive candidate, recruit or be that candidate. Show up for off-year elections and vote for Democrats. Show up for state elections and vote for Democrats. Show up for judicial elections and vote for Democrats. Show up and volunteer for Democrats, especially more progressive Democrats. Give money to Democrats and especially more progressive Democrats.

Be indispensable to victory instead of pre-emptively dispensing with yourselves and making yourselves irrelevant to the many victories they will win without you.

Rinse and repeat for maybe 10-20 years. I mean, honestly, this is not rocket science. This is how the Christian right began to dominate the Republican Party.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:19 AM on July 31, 2016 [101 favorites]


And of course continuing to attack the Democratic campaign when we are fighting against an opponent who is literally attacking Muslims because of their religion is a particularly good look.
...
If you don't want Trump to become President, why are you helping him? Even if you are not in a battleground state, every time you post on here or on Facebook with these constant attacks on Clinton, you are convincing other voters, who are in battleground states, that there is a legitimate reason not to vote for Clinton, thereby increasing the chances that Trump will become President. There are only two options in this election, and one of them is going to become President of the United States.


Look, I can respect the position of someone "of the left" who decides to hold his or her nose -- even if they need to do it so hard it almost twists off, as someone put it in another thread -- and vote for Hillary because the alternative is Trump. That I can understand.

What I can not understand is a "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" policy towards Clinton. That is an anti-intellectual and anti-progressive position -- that we should just uncritically fall in line behind her and exalt the leader. Sorry, I refuse to do that -- not with Clinton, not with anybody.

Yes, I've posted plenty of articles critical of Clinton. Clinton has, in my view, many seriously problematic aspects that are lost in this weird celebration of her. She's a neoliberal, a war hawk, a serial liar, a dictator supporter, in the pocket of Wall Street, etc. No doubt she has a few positive positions as well. But, on balance, she is tremendously flawed from a progressive perspective, in my estimation. I won't rehearse that argument here.

I've also posted articles critical of other candidates (Sanders, Trump, etc.) as well in plenty of other threads. I hardly think that Clinton is unique in these defects (she tends to share many of them with other mainstream politicians). For myself, I find little value in posting criticisms of Trump at this point since a) everyone else is taking care of that, so why bother b) it's not like there's anyone I need to convince on MF that Trump is a dangerous ignoramus -- there not a single Trump supporter on MF (or if there is they've been keeping very well hidden).

Frankly, if you're worried about "convincing other voters", I think the best tactic is to just be up front about why you think voting Hillary is a good idea while acknowledging her shortcomings (and plenty of people on MF, of course, have been doing this). People don't react well to a Wizard-of-Oz like evasion of a discussion of Hillary's flaws. Or -- even worse -- the accusation that they are criticizing her because of sexism or false consciousness or whatever (even if there is truth to the charge).

The idea that if one isn't praising Hillary while discussing the election one is helping Trump is ridiculous. MF exists as a place for us to discuss these issues intelligently and come closer to the truth. At least, I hope it does.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:20 AM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


On whether Trump has a financial relationship with Russian oligarchs, Manafort, video: "That's what he said. Uh, that's what I said. That's obviously what our position is."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:22 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]




NPB, your assertion that people are falling in line with Clinton derails everything you say after that. You are insulting me, insulting everyone that chose to vote for Clinton. Don't say I'm too stupid to look at her track record and still find many reasons to vote for her that aren't "she's not Trump".
posted by JakeEXTREME at 10:24 AM on July 31, 2016 [36 favorites]


Or -- even worse -- the accusation that they are criticizing her because of sexism or false consciousness or whatever (even if there is truth to the charge).

I've actually seen several people in the recent election/convention threads point out that talking things out in those threads raised their awareness of their own sexism as it pertains to their perception of Hillary. Maybe it's not working on you, but it has worked on some.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:25 AM on July 31, 2016 [22 favorites]


Do you think anyone on his staff currently actually gives a shit about him actually winning? As long as they are still getting paychecks, I'm pretty sure that the ghouls he is employing don't care one way or another what happens.

I think you're right. I hope they were smart enough to get the money up front, not on contract.
posted by ctmf at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


> "Non-citizens may volunteer for political campaigns, including phonebanking."

That's not the issue, I am a citizen. I live out-of-country and don't have a reliable cell phone, but I do have internet.
posted by kyrademon at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2016


What I can not understand is a "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" policy towards Clinton. That is an anti-intellectual and anti-progressive position -- that we should just uncritically fall in line behind her and exalt the leader. Sorry, I refuse to do that -- not with Clinton, not with anybody.

What I think you're not understanding is that a lot of people do not agree with you. I like Clinton. I do not expect my elected officials to be perfect or agree with me 100%.
posted by bongo_x at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2016 [40 favorites]


Yes, I've posted plenty of articles critical of Clinton. Clinton has, in my view, many seriously problematic aspects that are lost in this weird celebration of her. She's a neoliberal, a war hawk, a serial liar, a dictator supporter, in the pocket of Wall Street, etc. No doubt she has a few positive positions as well. But, on balance, she is tremendously flawed from a progressive perspective, in my estimation. I won't rehearse that argument here.

I've also posted articles critical of other candidates (Sanders, Trump, etc.) as well in plenty of other threads. I hardly think that Clinton is unique in these defects (she tends to share many of them with other mainstream politicians).


Turning the presidential election into an ideological purity contest is not good for progressivism. It is by far more advantageous to the right.

MF exists as a place for us to discuss these issues intelligently and come closer to the truth.

Indeed.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:29 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


The idea that if one isn't praising Hillary while discussing the election one is helping Trump is ridiculous. MF exists as a place for us to discuss these issues intelligently and come closer to the truth.

Your repeated copy-pasting of the same articles across multiple threads and wild accusations are certainly a good way of convincing us you're here to do that.
posted by winna at 10:32 AM on July 31, 2016 [36 favorites]


Much of the right doesn't like Trump but isn't having this handwringing ideological purity debate because they know if they don't fall in line their candidate has no chance. This is how the Republicans have control of Congress.
posted by AFABulous at 10:36 AM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


that we should just uncritically fall in line behind her and exalt the leader.

While I'm certain there are some doe-eyed boosters out there, most folks I know who support her—most folks who have spoken up in even emphatic support of Clinton on MetaFilter for that matter—seem to doing so with a reasonable amount of critical awareness of the compromises and limits that come with her candidacy. That they are supporting her nonetheless, either in general or over Trump in particular, is not a sign of lack of critical thought or of reflexive, exalting support.

When you get to the point that what you're arguing against people doing isn't what most folks actually are doing in the first place, it makes it very difficult to have patience for anything that comes attached to that argument.
posted by cortex at 10:36 AM on July 31, 2016 [59 favorites]


What's your plan?

What's your plan? Besides sitting on the sideline throwing darts? Maybe the left is as much to blame as moderate democrats for rightwing authoritarianism since the left hasn't been able to nominate a good/popular enough candidate to get even close to the presidency since FDR. The world isn't always as liberal as we want it to be, it takes work to make it that way and that's a long slow slog filled with starts and stops, successes and, yes, mistakes. It's easy to be pure and without fault just pointing out what you would have done better.
posted by chris24 at 10:38 AM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]


NPB, do you think your usual mode of drive-by link posting is helping us "discuss these issues intelligently and come closer to the truth?"

Yes, I've posted plenty of articles critical of Clinton. Clinton has, in my view, many seriously problematic aspects that are lost in this weird celebration of her. She's a neoliberal, a war hawk, a serial liar, a dictator supporter, in the pocket of Wall Street, etc. No doubt she has a few positive positions as well. But, on balance, she is tremendously flawed from a progressive perspective, in my estimation. I won't rehearse that argument here.

Well, first of all, your assertion that Clinton is a serial liar is a talking point from the far-right and doesn't bear closer examination. Several sites that take the time to evaluate the various claims of politicians have shown that she is actually the most truthful of all candidates in this presidential race.

In any case, what are your alternatives? Jill "I will first support anti-vaxxers/Brexit/homeopathy, then pretend I never did" Stein? Is she truthful?

Yes, Clinton voted for the Iraq war. So did many others, including Biden. Do you reserve this level of ire for him too?

Look, I am not saying that Clinton is perfect from a left perspective. No one in the current political climate could ever hope to be. Like it or not, there is no hidden group of voters who would consistently vote for the left - there is a group, but, as you saw, they were not enough to propel Bernie to victory (and don't tell me the primary was stolen from him - there were some inappropriate emails, but nothing to indicate that anything actually happened, and the polls consistently showed that Clinton enjoyed greater popular support than Sanders). Until the left is able to take control of the political discourse, we are always going to be in the position of voting for the best option out of two that are not perfect by left standards. That is the nature of politics.

Why do I think criticizing Clinton is a bad thing, right now? Because this is no ordinary election. This is no ordinary choice. Your actions have consequences. Please consider the Brexit vote. There are many on the left who considered a vote for a Leave a way of signaling that they were unhappy with the status quo. If Remain had won, that would have been just fine, the Leave-voters in that position could feel happy they had not sullied their hands by voting for Remain.

But sometimes, these signals actually impact things. When you criticize Clinton right now, you are playing into the hands of the far-right. You are making it more likely that the far left feels unable to "hold their nose" and vote for Clinton, even in swing states. You are directly helping to elect Trump. If that is not your aim, if you believe, like me, that a Trump presidency would be a disaster for the United States, the world, and progressive causes, then bury the hatchet until November. Explain to your fellow Bernie-voters why a Clinton presidency would be preferable to a Trump one (because it would be, on pretty much every measure). The Democratic party has already moved left, you have already made significant progress, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
posted by peacheater at 10:40 AM on July 31, 2016 [56 favorites]


Preibus: party will support Trump on debate date protest, despite the RNC being part of the commission that chose the dates in the first place.
posted by murphy slaw at 10:40 AM on July 31, 2016 [12 favorites]


What I can not understand is a "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" policy towards Clinton. That is an anti-intellectual and anti-progressive position -- that we should just uncritically fall in line behind her and exalt the leader. Sorry, I refuse to do that -- not with Clinton, not with anybody....MF exists as a place for us to discuss these issues intelligently and come closer to the truth. At least, I hope it does.

No one is saying you can't say things that are critical of Clinton; what people are saying is that the specific articles you linked to don't discuss Clinton fairly or intelligently and don't advance our understanding of the truth. If you're posting articles that people disagree with, people will disagree with them. That's not 'hear no evil,' that's 'hey, this article is incorrect in saying that Clinton is evil for [this specific reason].'

Repeatedly posting articles critical of someone and then not engaging with people's responses to those articles does not further the cause of intelligence discourse. It is, almost by definition -- except that you've now responded -- not actually discourse at all, but instead declamation.
posted by cjelli at 10:42 AM on July 31, 2016 [33 favorites]


We have 2 candidates. We have argued and debated a long time to get there. For anyone still debating the candidates it's that point in the argument where I have to ask "What is it you want to happen here?"
posted by bongo_x at 10:43 AM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


Preibus: party will support Trump on debate date protest, despite the RNC being part of the commission that chose the dates in the first place.

……...moves
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:43 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is the question that left dissenters need to ask themselves about Hillary Clinton, if they haven’t already: is there anything that Hillary Clinton can do to redeem herself to you?

If there isn’t, you can continue to protest her existence, but don’t be upset if she doesn’t respond — you wouldn’t accept a response if you got it.
posted by salix at 10:45 AM on July 31, 2016 [26 favorites]


The NFL should just cancel their games that Sunday to troll him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:46 AM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


The NFL should just cancel their games that Sunday to troll him.

I was thinking that, but it would be so expensive. I wonder if they could just change the times?
posted by bongo_x at 10:47 AM on July 31, 2016


I promise you no one in the Democratic Party structure gives any thought to [the Green Party] at all, much less looking at voting turnout as part of any sort of decision tree.

QFMFT.

For example, Votebuilder (the voter-file software in the news a few months ago because the Sanders campaign got access to some Clinton data) doesn't even have a listing for "Green Party" for tagging voters. A voter is either Democrat, Republican, NPA, Independent, or "Other." As far as the database used for tracking voters goes, a Green Part member might as well be a Libertarian or member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

The Democratic Party doesn't even have a mechanism to track who is registered in the Green Party.
posted by Cookiebastard at 10:49 AM on July 31, 2016 [22 favorites]


Morning brunch with the NFL. It could be a thing.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:49 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


...wow, the Hillary phone banking tool is amazingly well done.

odinsdream (or anyone else), if you could post a step by step on how to start phone banking and the commitment involved, it would be a great service to those of us considering doing this (like me).
posted by peacheater at 10:52 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


The idea that Trump can get away with just whining about the debates and not going is so What The Fuck. I get that the modern Republican party has given up any pretense that they care about governing beyond a giant Fuck You to the country, but isn't there a point at which any even remotely sane adults stop pretending?

Can we just have a televised debate where Hillary spends several hours asking why Trump is too much of coward to show up, and what does he think being a leader means?
posted by aspo at 10:54 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


OK, never mind, it literally is incredibly easy to use. I'm kind of scared to do it though. Are people nice?
posted by peacheater at 10:55 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


I've considered whether I'm guilty of too much boosterism in these election threads. Now that the ugliness of the primary has started to recede, I've found it a big relief to talk about a candidate I genuinely admire and am inspired by. Plus, we're coming off of a week-long convention that hit lots of emotional high notes and left me genuinely optimistic for the first time in a while.

I think another issue is that I've made a deliberate attempt in general to avoid the whole pre-apologizing thing. "Yes, I know Clinton is awful, but...", or "Yes, I acknowledge that Clinton was wrong about XYZ, but..." We're all thoughtful adults who are capable of nuance, and I shouldn't need to beg people to accept my liberal bona fides by talking about why Clinton is bad before discussing the things I like about her and her platform.

Also - and I know the sexism issue can raise hackles - but that sort of conditional, apologetic way of talking is something that many women have been conditioned to do, which is why I'm trying to avoid it.
posted by Salieri at 10:55 AM on July 31, 2016 [48 favorites]


I am also terrified of using the phone banking tool due to concern about reaching Trumpist assholes on the other end. :(
posted by stolyarova at 10:57 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


"We're not going to agree with anything our nominee doesn't agree with," Priebus said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "We're not going to be having debates on Saturday and Sunday night."

The weaselest of weasel words. This man's dedicated his life to a wretched cause, but I know he's not stupid. How does that shit sandwich taste, Reince? You've been working on the recipe for years. Is it everything you hoped for?
posted by Countess Elena at 10:57 AM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]


OK, never mind, it literally is incredibly easy to use. I'm kind of scared to do it though. Are people nice?

no.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:58 AM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


no.

How mean are we talking, exactly? :(
posted by stolyarova at 10:59 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Republican party is showing that their modus operandi is to surrender all autonomy to the biggest baddest bully ... err Alpha on the block. Right now Trump is the Alpha dog and everyone in his party (with the possible exception of Cruz) is basically rolling over and showing their belly to Trump.

When Trump was acting is a disgraceful manner regarding McCain I though maybe that would get some in his party to challenge Trump but then even McCain has been brought to heel (I guess getting re-elected is more important than standing up for yourself).

But now there is more or less no Republican voices that are willing to call out the Trumpster Fire for being an egregious asshole. That's what happens when you have a 20 year process of primarying anyone who dares disagree with you. Now the only people are left are those that would make Quisling look like he had a backbone.
posted by vuron at 10:59 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Heh, so not only did Donald insult a beloved fire marshal right after being rescued from a stuck elevator by the fire department, Donald's own security team (presumably "the best people") got him trapped there in the first place:

According to Perry Sanders, a lawyer who co-owns the hotel, Mr Trump’s security team had control of the hotel’s lifts at the time.

“The party were model guests but security insisted on having manual control of the elevators," he said.

He explained an investigation into the mishap on Friday afternoon by technicians revealed the elevator stopped working because someone turned the manual key while it was moving.

posted by salix at 11:03 AM on July 31, 2016 [60 favorites]


Are people nice?
Not always. I think I've mentioned here that I have actual, diagnosed social anxiety, and I don't mind too much when people are not nice, because I've accepted that it's just part of the process. Once you've done it a bit, you will stop minding when people snap at you. You may still get the very occasional really upsetting call, and it's good to have someone around to process that with if it happens. But it's pretty rare. Mostly, they're vaguely annoyed, and they either answer your questions or they hang up.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:04 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Fellow liberals please don't fuck this once in a lifetime opportunity. A Clinton landslide could give us the kind of House and Senate we saw after the LBJ landslide. Where we managed to get Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
Turn away from shitting on Clinton and the DNC and instead focus on getting liberals elected at the State, county and local level. Help win back the House and Senate.

There will be time after the election, if we win, to hold Hillary to her promises and work with a liberal majority to push agendas, reform the DNC and primary process. For now we have fewer than 100 days and energy spent attacking Hillary is energy that you took from ensuring a liberal victory.
posted by humanfont at 11:04 AM on July 31, 2016 [54 favorites]


If it's anything like the phone-bank tool the Obama campaign used to have, some people are not going to be happy to hear from you, even if you're politically on the same side

Not like, working as a telemarketer bad, though
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:04 AM on July 31, 2016


Facebanking is the new hotness though. Because all your facebook friends love being bombarded with countless barely concealed political campaign propaganda.
posted by vuron at 11:08 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Clinton campaign just asked me for $72. I don't know fit hey are trying to work me down from the previous request of $84,

So sorry, that must have been a glitch in the algorithm. (It was supposed to ask for $63)
posted by ctmf at 11:09 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


For those who have door to door canvassed in the past, what's the mean/nice ratio when you're face to face with folks?
posted by soren_lorensen at 11:10 AM on July 31, 2016


FGOTUS is a dreadful acronym though. Bubba Clinton. Bubba of The United States. BOTUS.

"FLOTUS" is already pretty bad. It's one letter away from "flatus."
posted by infinitywaltz at 11:11 AM on July 31, 2016


Are people nice?

Canvassing and phonebanking for Obama, I heard him called every horrible slur possible, and I was called terrible things for supporting him.

People are not nice.

But for every 100 calls that get made, Hillary will get a new vote. For every 14 doors you knock in your neighborhood, Hillary will get a new vote.

Picture making 100 calls and your friends making 100 calls and people in swing states all over the country making 100 calls, winning one vote at a time.

Picture the work, the hard work of getting treated shitty by strangers for trying to do some good in the world paying off. Picture these mean assholes on the other end of the line keeping their health insurance. Picture them keeping their reproductive rights. Picture them, and you, and everyone living a better life than if Donald Fucking Trump becomes President.
posted by Cookiebastard at 11:16 AM on July 31, 2016 [30 favorites]


Oh dear looks like it IS this Constutution selling, which is the bad one.
posted by Artw at 11:16 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


For those who have door to door canvassed in the past, what's the mean/nice ratio when you're face to face with folks?
It so totally depends on where you are. I'm doing it in Iowa now (I mean, not right now, but I'll be going out later this afternoon), and people here are polite even when they totally hate your candidate's guts. Iowa Nice is a deep, deep impulse, apparently. I canvassed in Indiana in 2008, and people literally yelled racial slurs at me. (And I'm white. Apparently I am a lover of people for whom the racial slurs are appropriate.) I did some canvassing in Wisconsin in 2004, and people were not super friendly but not as scary as the people in Indiana were. On the other hand, my candidate that time was a white man, so there's that.

The thing is, you can do it. Lots of people do, and it's not easy for anyone. It gets easier the more you do it, I promise!
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:20 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


I door-to-door canvassed in 2012 and people were extremely mean (NV, deep red county).
posted by stolyarova at 11:21 AM on July 31, 2016


I'm an extreme introvert with anxiety issues, though, so it probably wasn't as bad as I felt like it was at the time. And it was good exercise!
posted by stolyarova at 11:22 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


@soren_lorensen: I campaigned for Obama in 2008 in the Pittsburgh area. It really depends on the neighbourhood. If you're doing GOTV work in a reliably D area up the road from CMU, say, it's pretty relaxed. Door-to-door in the more peripheral areas with the aim of convincing undecideds can be slightly more confrontational, but it was never that bad for me.*

At least in 2008, the campaign didn't want us wasting time having arguments with people whose minds were made up in favour of McCain. The voter-tracking system attempted to rate people by how strongly they supported either candidate (with some input to that system from phone banking), and we stayed away from the R stalwarts.

You might be able to work with the campaign office to arrange outings so that you're (a) not alone (b) only sent on certain types of canvassing missions. (I was always paired for my canvassing, but we usually worked opposite sides of the street.)

I got to see parts of the city I had never seen before, which was an interesting side benefit. It's the only time I ever had any business in Duck Hollow, for example.

Anyway, I would ask and see if you can volunteer for runs you're comfortable with.

* big disclaimer: cis white dude here.
posted by tss at 11:24 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


soren_lorensen: "For those who have door to door canvassed in the past, what's the mean/nice ratio when you're face to face with folks?"

It was probably 95% nice to 5% mean when I was campaigning for Obama in 2008 but it helped that I was canvassing mostly in african-american neighborhoods. The vast majority of people were super sweet to this big dorky white guy wandering around their streets with a clipboard asking them if they were supporting the first black nominee for president.
posted by octothorpe at 11:24 AM on July 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


The best selling pocket Constitution on Amazon appears to be the Bicentennial Commission edition, fortunately.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:24 AM on July 31, 2016


soren_lorensen

If you can canvass your own neighborhood, then people are way nicer and canvassing is way more effective. They've seen you mowing the lawn or walking the dog or whatever, and they know you're a neighbor, and you can say "I live over on Nth Street and I hope you'll vote for Hillary." And they'll associate Hillary with their nice neighbor soren_lorensen and are more likely to vote for Hillary because of that. If you canvass a strange neighborhood, it's tougher. But most people are nice most of the time. A few people suck.

I strongly advocate for people canvassing their own neighborhoods. Not sure how good the Hillary Campaign is at organizing that.
posted by Cookiebastard at 11:25 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm an extreme introvert with anxiety issues, though, so it probably wasn't as bad as I felt like it was at the time. And it was good exercise!

As another extreme introvert with anxiety issues, I just want you to know I admire the FUCK out of you for being able to do canvassing anyway. Seriously, I'm taking a knee here.
posted by Mooski at 11:27 AM on July 31, 2016 [17 favorites]


Oh man I'm feeling so guilty. The thought of deliberately engaging hostile people - over the phone is almost worse than in person! - gives me hives. You all who do that are awesome.

I need to break through the discomfort and find a way to contribute, because I don't want to look back at this election and say that I didn't give it my all, not with these stakes.
posted by Salieri at 11:27 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Mike Pence is coming to my area tomorrow. Should I go protest, and if so, what should my sign say? Should I take pepper spray?
posted by stolyarova at 11:28 AM on July 31, 2016


> This is not an argument for anyone here. I'm offering it as an angle towards viewing why people compromise - and how to talk about it with fence sitters.

This, and to paraphrase what folks said before "which terrain would you rather fight in? Hillary's or Trump's?"
posted by mrzarquon at 11:31 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Should I go protest, and if so, what should my sign say?

"I'd rather vote for a complete Johnson than you"
posted by Talez at 11:31 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


If you're shy, the best way to canvas is with a buddy. It helps a lot to share the talking load and you tend to reinforce each other. You also look less like a lone crazy at the door.
posted by octothorpe at 11:32 AM on July 31, 2016


Talez, love it! Might actually persuade some Trump-reluctants to vote for Johnson instead (best case for my area, I'm afraid). Also, a lower chance of getting physically assaulted than if I held a pro-Clinton sign (I'm a petite woman).
posted by stolyarova at 11:33 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh and hey - the Campaign will need people for data entry, help keeping the field-office tidy, and all kinds of stuff. Knocking and Calling are great, but there's tons of other stuff to do to help support the campaign.
posted by Cookiebastard at 11:33 AM on July 31, 2016


What I need to make is a counter script for when Trump canvassers and phone bankers try to sell me.
posted by ctmf at 11:33 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


The difference between disaffected lefties and disaffected moderate Republicans is that the Republicans I know who are supporting Johnson are clear eyed that it is a fakey vote for Hillary. The people considering Stein have a very long and twisted strange analysis for how their vote is a tea leaf to be scrutinized for meaning. How the Republicans managed to learn the lessons of 2000 yet the left still hasn't is utterly beyond me.
posted by gatorae at 11:34 AM on July 31, 2016 [25 favorites]


I'd say something about how he apparently rates being an American at best 4th (behind his religion, political ideology, and political party), but I'm not sure how to make that a snappy sign.
posted by ckape at 11:35 AM on July 31, 2016


PENCE: AMERICA 4TH? Nah, I'm not big on the America First rhetoric.
posted by stolyarova at 11:36 AM on July 31, 2016


Before I volunteer to canvass, I feel like I need to prepare a brief rebuttal for every false or misleading charge against Hillary, and that, uh, that might take me a while.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:37 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Republicans are more comfortable with the idea of power. It's what they vote for, to claim power over the country.

Leftists vote more for personal identity and find the idea of collective power a bit more suspect.
posted by argybarg at 11:38 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I would just go with "Pence Blows" but then I don't get invited to a lot of social functions
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:39 AM on July 31, 2016 [14 favorites]


Cookiebastard: "Oh and hey - the Campaign will need people for data entry, help keeping the field-office tidy, and all kinds of stuff. Knocking and Calling are great, but there's tons of other stuff to do to help support the campaign."

Yeah, there is some of that but 90% of what they're going to want volunteers to do is canvas and phone bank.

We didn't even have a field office for Obama; we just floated to whatever random office the field co-ordinator could wrangle up permissions for that week. Once were in a massage studio, another time was in a lawyer's office, a few times it was in the Postal Worker's Union office. He just kept boxes of print outs and burner phones in the trunk of his Honda Civic and wherever we ended up was the Pittsburgh Northside for Obama office for that day.
posted by octothorpe at 11:39 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


The people considering Stein have a very long and twisted strange analysis for how their vote is a tea leaf to be scrutinized for meaning.

I mean, when they see how many people voted for Deez Nutz they're going to be forced to go after the Nutz next time, right?
posted by bongo_x at 11:40 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]






octothorpe - Yes !-definitely YMMV! In my town we had 1 main field office and 4 smaller field offices.
posted by Cookiebastard at 11:45 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Pence on fire?
posted by ctmf at 11:46 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just watched Khizr Khan's interview with Meet the Press this morning.

Make that guy Secretary of State.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:48 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


My anecdata of canvassing for state house and senate races in swing districts was that folks were pretty chill about me knocking on their doors, even the strident Republicans. I think people are friendlier about the candidates that haven't been in the news nonstop for a year. You're actually giving them new information.
posted by Banknote of the year at 11:49 AM on July 31, 2016


Scott Adams has become what Dave Sim would be if Sim weren't an artistic savant. I wonder if the two could make friends, maybe start an alt-right cartoon blog with A. Wyatt Mann.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:50 AM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


To all the people worried about phone banking: I feel you! The Sanders campaign had a yuge texting team. There were still assholes but it seemed to be enough removed from talking that it's what I would have been doing had I not been doing back-end stuff. (Texting did not require use of your personal phone # and there were no data charges.) Maybe someone familiar with the Clinton operation can tell us if there's something similar.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:52 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


This idea that effective canvassing requires you to be a devastatingly good debater who's ready with pitch-perfect refutations and talking points is probably not correct. You can find that stuff on TV. It's rarer to meet an actual human being from nearby who is sharing their own hopes and feelings about a political candidate---eye-to-eye and without a script---particularly one who is not a friend, relative, next-door-neighbour, or co-worker (with all the social freight that those relationships entail).

This is one reason why campaign offices like to send real humans door-to-door.
posted by tss at 11:54 AM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Well, Clinton is definitely texting me non-stop, which I kind of wish she wouldn't do, because I don't have an unlimited texting plan. But the Dems generally go with the most-direct contact possible: their research suggests that face-to-face is more effective than phone calls, and personal phone calls are more effective than robo-calls. I would be surprised if they were doing a lot of texting, but I could be wrong.

One thing that you really can do if you're in a swing state is volunteer to provide housing for an organizer. They don't get paid very much, and having free housing is a huge help to them. I know a lot of people who have done that, and they've all said it was a good experience. The organizers are basically out working from the time they wake up to the time they go to sleep, so you don't see very much of them, but they're generally very earnest and well-behaved young folks, and they're fun to be around.
This idea that effective canvassing requires you to be a devastatingly good debater who's ready with pitch-perfect refutations and talking points is probably not correct.
It's definitely not correct. You actually really don't want to try to overwhelm people with point-by-point refutations: it just bores them and pisses them off. People don't like being lectured to. You want to hear them out and then reframe the debate. "I totally understand that you think that Hillary is too close to Wall Street. I think that's been overstated, but even if it's completely true: we need to overturn Citizens United before we can get money out of politics. Hillary has always said that was a priority of hers, and it's definitely not a priority of whomever will be choosing Supreme Court justices for Trump. So I think voting for Hillary is the best way to achieve that goal, even though you have valid reservations about her."
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:03 PM on July 31, 2016 [18 favorites]


I'm planning on dropping in at the field office (the main Pittsburgh office is really close to my house) once I'm done mowing the lawn to see of I can rustle up some yard signs and I'll see of anyone there can talk to me about canvassing. I'd love to canvas my own neighborhood, I've lived up here for 10 years and I think a lot of people would probably recognize me.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:03 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think it's important to practice speaking to and, most crucally, listening to folks with opposite viewpoints. Most of them are not racist hatebags and would, in fact, do selfless things for their neighbors and want a good future for their country.
posted by argybarg at 12:04 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


The rebuttal to "Hillary is too close to Wall Street" is of course "Wall Street paid Hillary more than $200,000 to speak to them repeatedly. That's her 'I'm only speaking to you because you're paying me a truckload of money' rate. And offer me that much money and I'll speak to anything this side of a Klan rally. People she likes she'll not just speak to but help for free."
posted by Francis at 12:06 PM on July 31, 2016 [13 favorites]


Serious question (maybe rhetorical? Google doesn't give me an immediate answer) - does phone banking and door-to-door canvassing really work in advocating for your candidate? Not as a get-out-the-vote measure - I can see a personal contact nudging someone to haul ass to the polls - but actual "I didn't know who I was going to vote for but now you have convinced me"? Speaking for myself, I hate having someone knocking on my door even if I am planning to vote for that candidate and I sure wouldn't make a decision based on a random visit. Sure, with local races having the candidate turn up at your door is a great personal contact and I can see that making a difference, but in a national race? I'm just curious what the actual effect is and if that has changed with the prevalence of the 24 hour news cycle and social media.

Don't even get me started about the people who approach you in the parking lot of the polling place. Who decides who they are going to vote for while walking into the building??
posted by Preserver at 12:06 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]




Don't even get me started about the people who approach you in the parking lot of the polling place. Who decides who they are going to vote for while walking into the building??

In the UK those are called 'Tellers' - and their job isn't so much to try to change your vote. It's to keep an approximate total of the number of votes each party has and an absolute total of the number of voters so we can send people round 'knocking up' - reminding people in the relevant wards that it's election day and asking them if they want a lift. And we can report in how the vote is going, possibly changing our strategy. (And as a third thing giving the activists a job on election day keeps them from gnawing their nails to the bone).
posted by Francis at 12:10 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Who decides who they are going to vote for while walking into the building??

People who feel a civic duty to vote but who don't really pay attention to politics. I don't know what percentage of the electorate that is but it's definitely not zero.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:13 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


A very quick google for studies suggests door to door canvassing is quite effective. Phone calls appear pretty mixed. Even flyers in the mail seem to have some effect. So yes the campaigns are not totally stupid. Also I doubt we'd see so much angst from seasoned republicans about Trump's lack of campaign organization if canvassing was pointless.
posted by R343L at 12:14 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


The truthout.org article is correct that Obama did not prioritize the 2008 D party platform's commitment to a public option or to poverty reduction, compared to, say, deficit reduction.

I'll give you deficit reduction, which is basically DC Disease, and I'm sure Obama will write about that in his memoir. Public option was a non-starter because the Senate votes (e.g. Joe Lieberman) simply didn't exist for it and could not be magicked up out of thin air. Poverty reduction? 2008-10 was mostly about short-term "get money in people's pockets and into the economy" such as the cut to the payroll tax, extension of unemployment benefits and SNAP, and stimulus projects. Most of the individualised stuff was done quietly so that the money would be spent and not saved.
posted by holgate at 12:20 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


If you're trying to reach young people without landlines and who don't really use the phone, texting is a good way to reach them. I believe the Sanders campaign only texted people who opted in to receive texts, though.

It's definitely not correct. You actually really don't want to try to overwhelm people with point-by-point refutations: it just bores them and pisses them off.

Also, social anxiety is a real thing and I don't think the people asking are concerned with being a great debater, they're concerned about being able to contribute in a way that works for them even if it's not the number one best ever way to canvass.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:20 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Grandeur of Hilary Clinton: Untrustworthiness and Social Progress.
"Hillary Clinton owes her reputation for untrustworthiness to a single large and admirable decision that she made long ago; and to a series of baffled responses that her decision aroused and continues to arouse; and to the hatreds and paranoias that, like weeds or fungi, eventually sprang from the bafflement—a long history. And every new phase in the long history has done her credit, even if some of those phases require too much explanation."
posted by storybored at 12:21 PM on July 31, 2016 [19 favorites]


The Obama campaign's big innovation was to use research methods borrowed from the social sciences and from business analytics to figure out what works and what doesn't. So the Democrats are actually targeting things pretty carefully. They know, for instance, that people will tell you that being contacted makes them less likely to vote for your candidate, but it's not true. There is literally no amount of contact that will make a person less likely to vote for you, even though people swear (literally swear: "fuck you, go away, I'm not going to vote for your candidate now") that it does. That sucks for people who don't want to be contacted, but it's what the research suggests.

Another thing that they realized is that some populations are much more susceptible to persuasion than other populations. So if you're getting contacted a lot, it's probably because there's something about your demographics or voting behavior that looks like you're a useful person to contact. So, for instance, in 2014, I was likely to be contacted because I was a single woman living in a low-income neighborhood but probably less likely to be contacted because I had voted in every single election since I moved to that address.

And finally, I believe the research does suggest that individual contact is better for turning out decided voters than for persuading undecided voters. But where I live, we're already doing GOTV, because people can sign up to vote by mail now. And in other places, you may be doing a lot of voter registration.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:21 PM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


HI all... inspired by the conversation on this thread I made my way to the Clinton site, found the phone banking tool, and--as referenced earlier--it's really, really easy.

I'm a shameless extrovert and have no fear whatsoever of speaking on the phone, so this is one I can take for the team. For the rest of you extroverts out there, please go to the Clinton web site, sign up, and get to it! Easy peasy!
posted by Sublimity at 12:22 PM on July 31, 2016 [30 favorites]


I'm not saying social anxiety isn't a thing; I'm responding to remarks like this one:

I feel like I need to prepare a brief rebuttal for every false or misleading charge against Hillary

which I don't think is true. That's all.
posted by tss at 12:24 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


NPB, do you think your usual mode of drive-by link posting is helping us "discuss these issues intelligently and come closer to the truth?"

These election threads are very fast-moving. The ones over the past couple of weeks especially so. I read what's there, post an article I find helpful, and move on. It's almost impossible to get into an extended back-and-forth discussion when there's like 10 new comments every 15 seconds. Yes, I do hope that people are finding the articles I post helpful. Granted, some may not like the content because of partisanship, but that's a different story. Furthermore, I don't mind arguing a minority position, but defending that against all comers (something which I understand to be against MF etiquette) is also logistically difficult in a thread with a high posting rate.

Well, first of all, your assertion that Clinton is a serial liar is a talking point from the far-right and doesn't bear closer examination.

I'll limit myself to a couple of examples: her repeated misstatements about her email server, via this AP fact check. There are more examples cited in this article.

Question for you: just because the right says something, is it necessarily not true? Unfortunately for Clinton, sometimes the accusations are true. (Note I'm not trying to make any broader claims about the nature of the right's engagement with Clinton, etc.)

In any case, what are your alternatives? Jill "I will first support anti-vaxxers/Brexit/homeopathy, then pretend I never did" Stein? Is she truthful?

I've never advocated support for Stein. Or Bernie, for that matter.

If you're asking who I'm going to vote for in this election, I'll vote for the most left-wing candidate I see on my ballot. In any event, I haven't found a candidate worth my outspoken support.

If you're asking a more general question about electoral strategy, if progressives are inside the Democratic Party they will continue to do the bidding of the Democratic Party. This points to a third formation which can actually make demands of the Democrats -- and make them stick to those promises by refusing to support them if they don't. Plus, the domain of politics isn't limited to the electoral yadda yadda... this is a longer discussion.

So did many others, including Biden. Do you reserve this level of ire for him too?

He's not running for president, so naturally he's less discussed in presidential election threads. But yeah, if he were, I would, assuming he had a similar platform as Hillary. And yes, anyone's Senate vote to support the Iraq War was disgraceful.

Why do I think criticizing Clinton is a bad thing, right now? Because this is no ordinary election. This is no ordinary choice.

Ok, but even assuming this is true, this is a claim that Democrats make every election to get people to vote for them. If we're ever going to wiggle free of the two-party duopoly, at some point we need a break with this logic.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:29 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


I feel like I need to prepare a brief rebuttal for every false or misleading charge against Hillary...

I would like to find the best, most comprehensive rebuttal list online. Any suggestions?

I can get some polite agreement from the Cruz supporters in my family about how shifty Trump is. But then they pivot pretty fast to accusing Clinton of being a big liar, because that's what's in the zeitgeist. Is there a mega-list of explanations of Clinton's "scandals"? Ideally one that's factual but not exhaustive, because I can't stand to get much deeper into the who, what, where of Benghazi.

These relatives are starting to lean toward Gary Johnson, but I'd like to make sure their fear and loathing of Trump constantly exceeds their fear and loathing of H. Clinton.
posted by puddledork at 12:34 PM on July 31, 2016


I door to door canvassed for Obama in Indiana the first time and no-one was mean or threatening to me. Many people told me I was wasting my time and one guy tried to bait me about guns, but people were generally polite. I phone banked in the 2nd Obama campaign and those people were surprisingly friendly (given how many people I know who despise phone interruptions).

In the 2nd Obama election, I poll watched as an attorney (not as an election judge or poll worker) for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law.Poll workers and random voters were vile to me although literally the only thing I did was sit in the polling place and count people who were turned away or otherwise had to argue to be allowed to cast votes. The poll workers were required to inform me when a provisional ballot was cast and I was allowed to tell people who I was or answer the questions about what they could do, but that was it.
posted by crush-onastick at 12:37 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


If we're ever going to wiggle free of the two-party duopoly, at some point we need a break with this logic.

The only way we will ever 'wiggle free of the two-party duopoly' is by passing a constitutional amendment to radically change the way elected officials are chosen in this country. A third party might be able to start at the state level and gradually build up support over decades, but if they do, the result will be that they supplant one of the other two major parties. Yeah, it's shitty. We're also stuck with it for the time being.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:37 PM on July 31, 2016 [27 favorites]


If we're ever going to wiggle free of the two-party duopoly, at some point we need a break with this logic.

If you're ever to wiggle free of the two-party duopoly (rather than have one party implode for about a decade and possibly be replaced by another) you need to ensure that the President isn't a winner takes all race.
posted by Francis at 12:39 PM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


FWIW, I don't have a list of prepared rebuttals. So far in a dozen or so calls I've only gotten answering machines and have left a general "please support Hillary on November 8" message.

I don't know every jot and tittle of her career, nor every criticism real and imagined. What I do know is that she's had a career of literally decades of public service, has done far more good than harm, and is so much better suited to the presidency than Donald Trump that it's not even a close contest. I imagine if someone feels like they need to be combative about specific pointed accusations I can take that as a data point, thank them for their time, and move on. Maybe point them to politifact. com if I think it will help.
posted by Sublimity at 12:40 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


The third from two party concept: does it need to be a separation of a party always? That line of thought never sat well with me. Couldn't it be created from scratch instead? Like if the Green Party actually tried to win something and then grew. I only really see the 3 from 2 idea being beneficial because of the built in infrastructure and maybe it would migrate too.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 12:40 PM on July 31, 2016


> "Ok, but even assuming this is true, this is a claim that Democrats make every election to get people to vote for them."

I am willing to literally swear that I will never make this argument again following this election unless the Republicans manage to find another utterly inexperienced blatantly racist willfully ignorant frighteningly narcissistic violence-advocating demagogue, or something equivalent like a genuine fire-and-brimstone lock-up-the-women-and-gays apocalyptic theocrat. After this, I will no longer make this argument for a McCain or a Dole or even a Romney. We are up against something terrifying here and I am willing to throw all my cards on the table if that will help stop it.
posted by kyrademon at 12:41 PM on July 31, 2016 [35 favorites]


FWIW, state ballot access laws for third parties can be a motivating factor to vote for a third party presidential nominee, as enough votes can open up (temporary) access down the ballot for that party in future elections. However, that's treating the symptom and not the cause: restrictive ballot access laws need reform and that should be the primary focus of third-party advocates. Kick up a fuss about being kept off the ballot for county commissions or state legislative races.
posted by holgate at 12:44 PM on July 31, 2016


The thing is, Noisy Pink Bubbles, that your problem is that you're a total outlier in the American political universe. Very, very few people in the US agree with your positions. So I think that the best use of your time is to ignore elections entirely and focus on the big picture, which is making a case for your political outlook. Once there are more than a handful of people who agree with you, you can try to figure out how to proceed strategically. What you're doing right now is not convincing anyone to agree with your political framework, but it is reinforcing ideas that make it more likely that a fascist will be elected.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:49 PM on July 31, 2016 [26 favorites]


The third from two party concept: does it need to be a separation of a party always? That line of thought never sat well with me. Couldn't it be created from scratch instead? Like if the Green Party actually tried to win something and then grew. I only really see the 3 from 2 idea being beneficial because of the built in infrastructure and maybe it would migrate too.

It could be a third party grown from scratch. The issue is it's a near-Thunderdome. There can be only two dominant parties at any given time. (It would surprise me but not stun me if we ended up with the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party).

But from what I've seen of the US Green Party (and I'm a member of the Green Party of England and Wales) you'd honestly be better off starting from scratch - or maybe taking it over. What you need is a heavy collection of volunteers willing to put in the gruntwork in down-ticket races before you have a chance. And Ralph Nader and Jill Stein just shoot straight for the top spot.
posted by Francis at 12:51 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


I believe the Sanders campaign only texted people who opted in to receive texts, though.

I received multiple calls and texts from the Sanders campaign ahead of my state's primary and most DEFINITELY did not knowingly opt in for this. I was actually pretty annoyed about this.
posted by schadenfrau at 12:54 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I understand where NPB is coming from. I'm definitely voting Clinton this time around, but I still have reservations about the treatment of people like Chelsea Manning, warrantless mass surveillance, rising tension with Russia, and various other issues. However, voting for a third party won't help correct any of those issues, either. The best thing I can do is make noise about them outside the voting booth and hope somebody hears me.
posted by stolyarova at 12:56 PM on July 31, 2016 [16 favorites]


Yeah I don't see the Green Party over here in the US doing anything with their current leadership. I had a hell of a time just trying to get someone on the phone willing to talk to me about anything other than "check out our website".

I should clarify that I am voting Clinton and was looking just to see how much outreach the Green Party had in my area. They didn't seem to even have an apparatus in play to try for the requisite signatures for the ballots in my state. Almost as if they were relying entirely on word of mouth.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 12:56 PM on July 31, 2016


The issue is it's a near-Thunderdome. There can be only two dominant parties at any given time. (It would surprise me but not stun me if we ended up with the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party).

Exactly. It's the quirk of having a single run election that's first-past-the-post and uses an electoral college.

The only way to reliably win is 270 EVs which can only come through consolidation of spoilers into the main fold. If there's an election with less than 270 EVs it heads to the house so the house winner gets the election. It really isn't conducive to high primary votes for third parties.

If there was a runoff there'd be a higher third party primary vote in the pre-runoff election. If the election was an IRV popular vote contest you would see a hell of a lot more primary vote for third parties. But right now? Not a chance.
posted by Talez at 12:56 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also, if you don't have time to participate in a conversation, drive by spamming of links of questionable provenance is not really an acceptable alternative .
posted by schadenfrau at 12:57 PM on July 31, 2016 [27 favorites]


the greens seem to have no interest in doing the hard work to build a viable national party. they mount a quixotic presidential run every four years and can barely be arsed to run for city council the rest of the time.
posted by murphy slaw at 12:58 PM on July 31, 2016 [20 favorites]


Kaine requested that Yellen exempt regional banks and credit unions/community banks from some of the regulations that the big national banks are under

Thanks for the correction travella, my apologies to the mefi community for inaccurately calling Kaine a "Wall Street deregulator".

There's still the concern that Kaine has pushed for financial deregulation of large financial institutions, including US Bank and Capital One, and is on the Wasserman Schultz wing of not regulating payday lenders.

In addition to Kaine's skepticism towards financial regulation, he was friendly to anti-union laws as governor, and voted to fast track the TPP.

This means Kaine's on the economically conservative end of the D Party, has actively promoted economic policies that lead to stagnant/falling living standards for most Americans, and should not be ascendant within the Democratic Party

I'm not writing this to help Trump, but because I believe that progressives who view the D party leadership as targets for pressure are necessary for curbing right wing populism in the short and long term.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 12:58 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


I won't say it's easy to get on the ballot here in WA but it's not particularly hard. My ballot had a Libertarian for nearly every office. My ballot had no Greens. My district is very liberal by national standards. This tells me the Greens at least in WA aren't seriously trying to govern so I'll keep voting democratic (mostly). This is also why given the way our system is structured in most races, it would make more sense (practically) to try to drag the Democratic Party left.
posted by R343L at 12:59 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well maybe nearly every office. But it was a lot. And despite ideological differences, the libertarian candidates weren't obviously kooks in most cases. That is, they were far above average for third party candidates in terms of relevant experience and ability to form coherent sentences in their candidate statements.
posted by R343L at 1:01 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


If you want to move the Democrats to the left, well, the Tea Party have done a good job at shifting the Republicans to the right. I guess you need to do whatever they did (which I’m pretty sure doesn’t include voting for a third party in presidential elections).

Although be careful what you wish for, because: look at what the Tea Party has done to the Republicans.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 1:02 PM on July 31, 2016 [16 favorites]


The thing is, Noisy Pink Bubbles, that your problem is that you're a total outlier in the American political universe. Very, very few people in the US agree with your positions. So I think that the best use of your time is to ignore elections entirely and focus on the big picture, which is making a case for your political outlook. Once there are more than a handful of people who agree with you, you can try to figure out how to proceed strategically. What you're doing right now is not convincing anyone to agree with your political framework, but it is reinforcing ideas that make it more likely that a fascist will be elected.


This is pretty condescending
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:02 PM on July 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


this is a claim that Democrats make every election to get people to vote for them. If we're ever going to wiggle free of the two-party duopoly, at some point we need a break with this logic.

I agree. I am someone who has long resisted the "lesser of two evils" argument for most of my voting life on precisely this point. But for this election, I sincerely believe--for the first time not only in my voting life, but possibly the only time in modern U.S. election history--that it is, in fact, the correct argument.

This is why I posted my link to the 2002 French election above. If tens of millions of French socialists, Greens, communists, et al. could band together to vote for Jacques Fucking Chirac against Jean-Marie Le Pen, then I can and will cast my lot with Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump. (And no, I'm not going to use a clothespin while I do it.)

Yes, the "lesser of two evils" argument has essentially been (IMO) the Dems crying wolf for decades. But this time, there is actually a wolf at the door.
posted by the return of the thin white sock at 1:08 PM on July 31, 2016 [17 favorites]


If you want to move the Democrats to the left, well, the Tea Party have done a pretty good job at shifting the Republicans to the right. I guess you need to do whatever they did (which I’m pretty sure doesn’t include voting for a third party in presidential elections).
THIS.
(Of course it helps to have the financial backing of somebody like the Koch Brothers, which is going to be hard to find; even George Soros won't support you like that)
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:09 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


...two-party duopoly, at some point we need a break with this logic.


I seriously don't understand how you can still take this position when we have literally watched the GOP become permanently irrelevant while the Democratic Party is currently in the process of splitting into Progressive and Centrist groups as part of a direct effort of its members.
posted by odinsdream at 1:10 PM on July 31, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'll limit myself to a couple of examples: her repeated misstatements about her email server, via this AP fact check. There are more examples cited in this article.

I've got my own skepticism of Clinton but the first fact I tried to check from that Harpers essay,
One can forgive her reticence about sharing the traumas of her childhood, which included her father cutting down his brother’s corpse from a noose.
is contradicted by this excerpt of a book by by Carl Bernstein, which says that Russell Rodham, Hillary's uncle, attempted to hang himself in 1948, but was saved by her father and lived until 1962.
posted by XMLicious at 1:13 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Schadenfrau: I received multiple calls and texts from the Sanders campaign ahead of my state's primary and most DEFINITELY did not knowingly opt in for this. I was actually pretty annoyed about this.

I don't think calls are opt-in but if you asked to be removed from either list you should have been, immediately, because the tools were available. As a former volunteer, apologies if your request fell through the cracks.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:19 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't think the Democrats ever have won a "lesser of two evils election." Gore (I know, he really won, thanks) and Kerry got lukewarm reviews and lost. Very few people who voted for Obama thought we has "lesser of two evils."

I also don't recommend this approach. I don't think Clinton is evil, and I think she represents something new and interesting in the Democratic party: A consensus builder, a listener, a very accomplished legislator and diplomat, and a more committed leftist than her husband at least.
posted by argybarg at 1:20 PM on July 31, 2016 [34 favorites]


Also, seriously: Why does the left wing of the Democratic party have more of a right to be heard and deferred to than the center does?
posted by argybarg at 1:21 PM on July 31, 2016 [46 favorites]


I seriously don't understand how you can still take this position when we have literally watched the GOP become permanently irrelevant while the Democratic Party is currently in the process of splitting into Progressive and Centrist groups as part of a direct effort of its members.

You realize this is exactly what people were saying the other way barely five years ago, right?
posted by Etrigan at 1:24 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


A two-party duopoly is baked into our constitution. You will never break it through anything less than a new governing document for the United States government. Short of that, the best we can hope for is to replace one of the current major parties, and that process doesn't start with the presidency.>
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:29 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


If you want to support a third party candidate, you need to start by supporting changes to voting that would make more than two parties possible.
posted by VTX at 1:31 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


My protest sign is done! The front says:

I'D RATHER VOTE
FOR A COMPLETE
JOHNSON
THAN FOR TRUMP


And the back, rather trollily, says:

VOTE YOUR
CONSCIENCE

posted by stolyarova at 1:31 PM on July 31, 2016 [12 favorites]


/facepalm
posted by odinsdream at 1:32 PM on July 31, 2016


There should be no problem with the idea of simultaneously pushing to elect Clinton as a more responsible POTUS over Trump while building an opposition movement that in time, potentially primary her and/or impeach her, should the need arise. Given the rise of the imperial presidency, such a plan might damn well be a natural reflex to whomever is elected, regardless of party or personality.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:34 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't think the Democrats ever have won a "lesser of two evils election." Gore (I know, he really won, thanks) and Kerry got lukewarm reviews and lost. Very few people who voted for Obama thought we has "lesser of two evils."

I also don't recommend this approach. I don't think Clinton is evil, and I think she represents something new and interesting in the Democratic party: A consensus builder, a listener, a very accomplished legislator and diplomat, and a more committed leftist than her husband at least.


Fair enough, but trust me when I (and others in this thread) say that non-Democrat progressives/leftists are presented with this argument every four years like clockwork, often in pretty hostile terms. I think it's useful for Democrats, who are presumably trying to convince holdouts on the left, to openly acknowledge this as a way of understanding why some people may be resistant, and as a way of bridging the gap.
posted by the return of the thin white sock at 1:35 PM on July 31, 2016


odinsdream, I know it's silly, but I live in a deep red county and am genuinely afraid of being assaulted by angry Trump supporters if I publicly support Clinton. I'm a young woman and I'm going to be protesting alone.
posted by stolyarova at 1:36 PM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]


Also, seriously: Why does the left wing of the Democratic party have more of a right to be heard and deferred to than the center does?

Generally I think it's a fundamental lack of understanding of the political process. Look at this thread for examples! It seems to me that a lot of hard leftists think that certain actions are effective primarily because they really want them to be effective rather than through any evidence. Like "if I vote Green instead of Clinton despite her bending over backwards to accommodate my wishes it will shift the Democrats even further left!". No, no it won't. It will only prove there is no point in catering to your wishes because you are unpersuadeble
posted by Justinian at 1:37 PM on July 31, 2016 [46 favorites]


So what do you propose as an alternative? How, without actual structural changes to the Constitution, would a 3rd party ever be viable?

And how do stitch together leftists and Democratic centrists without compromise?
posted by argybarg at 1:37 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obama did not support marriage equality when he was elected. He didn't even say he did. His position "evolved."

Why did his position evolve? Well, activists won both legal and PR battles in a large number of states and turned the tide towards marriage equality while he was in office. Once the tide had turned, he backed marriage equality enthusiastically and has never looked back.

Maybe that's how he felt all along. Maybe it was just political calculus. Either way, once democrats knew they could embrace the issue and not risk being voted out of office, they fell in line.

Had a Republican been president, they could not have embraced marriage equality no matter what the majority of states were doing because it would have cost them the next election. Their base would have been enraged.

A democratic presidency leaves the ground fertile for progressive growth. A Republican presidency salts the earth.

And I always have to mention the supreme court. A Republican victory this time means we lose our chance at having a progressive majority court for decades. And we allow a republican majority to restock the dozens of federal judges whose positions have been unfilled by a republican senate.

The only way having a Republican in power benefits the far left is that a few more people will show up for our marches. Positive progressive change? We'd have to wait for it, wait for it.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:38 PM on July 31, 2016 [83 favorites]


I think Leftists think they're right and centrists are wrong, and that a fair process would prove that and make centrists go away.
posted by argybarg at 1:39 PM on July 31, 2016 [12 favorites]


I think it's useful for Democrats, who are presumably trying to convince holdouts on the left, to openly acknowledge this as a way of understanding why some people may be resistant, and as a way of bridging the gap.

It is so nice to feel wanted, is it not? To be pursued, to be wooed, to be chased and to be loved!
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 1:40 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


I feel like I need to prepare a brief rebuttal for every false or misleading charge against Hillary...

I would like to find the best, most comprehensive rebuttal list online. Any suggestions?


If you're talking about canvassing or phonebanking people with whom you don't already have some kind of personal connection, you not only don't need this, you don't really want it.

Getting sucked into a policy debate in that situation is a fool's errand-- it's a bunch of unproductive arguing that wastes everybody's time, and changes no-one's mind.

You're much better off acknowledging the person's concerns (genuinely--so that they feel not just listened to, but heard), then pivoting to why you, personally support the candidate.

It helps a lot to practice your personal story of support enough that you feel comfortable telling it, but not so much that you memorize it word-for-word. That way, when you have these conversations you can allow them to flow more naturally.

It can also help to have some variations on your personal story that are relevant to the concerns expressed by the person you're talking to. For example, when I was canvassing, phonebanking, and meeting with potential volunteers in Oregon in 2012, I encountered tons of left/progressive folks who were angry about the Affordable Care Act because they wanted single-payer, and felt the President had betrayed them by not pushing for it. Rather than try to argue with them about the feasibility of getting such a law passed, and whether the President had or had not sold them out to the insurance companies, my response was something like this:

"I know--I really wish we could have gotten single payer too--and I suspect so does President Obama. But one of the reasons I'm supporting the President this year is because my dad's about to retire. He'll need insurance to supplement his medicare, but he's had cancer twice. Because of Obamacare, insurance companies aren't allowed to refuse to cover him just because of his pre-existing conditions."

This doesn't always work, but it works a lot better than an argument, and has the added benefit that people will be much nicer to you--even if they deeply disagree--if you personalize the connection.
posted by dersins at 1:40 PM on July 31, 2016 [31 favorites]


I have voted in EVERY election, general, primary and local, since I have been eligible to do so (except for the '84 November election because my mother died suddenly in another city and I had to travel before I could visit the polling place; after that, I've voted by mail whenever allowed to). I'm not bragging, but I have zero respect for the "don't vote, it only encourages them" argument. And if you only count only the main elections, my record for backing winners for all offices is well over 50%. But that's because I've grown pretty liberal and lived in mostly Democrat-dominated areas where third-party candidates rarely tread. The primaries are another story. In open and party-dependent primaries (after my Republican Activist mother died, I decided it was safe to register as a Democrat), my experience has been far more often for my First Choice Candidate to not make it to the Finals. But I vote. Because I can.

I'm now living in one of California's most "purple" areas, where the state legislators are more often Republican and the long-time Democrat congresswoman has retired and there's serious battle for her replacement. If "California's 24th" turns Red, I'll be almost as saddened as if Dishonest Don wins.

I don't think the Democrats ever have won a "lesser of two evils election."
But this election has a Republican who has enthusiastically embraced Evil in all its forms. Have I mentioned that I KNEW somebody who Trump cheated out of thousands of dollars over 25 years ago?
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:41 PM on July 31, 2016 [14 favorites]


Whew, I just bit the bullet and made a few calls. My first two I couldn't reach, but the third one was very positive and gave me her email address to give her more information about volunteering for Hillary! Woo!
posted by peacheater at 1:48 PM on July 31, 2016 [61 favorites]


It is so nice to feel wanted, is it not? To be pursued, to be wooed, to be chased and to be loved!

I'm confused. Are you genuinely interested in winning over holdouts on the left to vote for Clinton, or not? My point was to offer some information that may be useful for making a successful bid for some of those votes from people who have been turned off by the lesser of two evils argument in the past. I'm exactly the sort of person you're looking to convince, and indeed, I've been convinced. So why are you mocking that?
posted by the return of the thin white sock at 1:49 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


despite her bending over backwards to accommodate my wishes

It's great that Hillary broadcast a lot of progressive ideas at the D convention -- debt-free college, expanding SS, etc. But I think she only had two concrete actions she could take pre-election to build trust with the Sanders/Warren wing: (1) VP nom, (2) helping kill the TPP.

She's blowing both of them, which is hardly bending over backwards in my book.

These aren't small items, they're directly related to the "centrist" economic policies which depress living standards for the majority of Americans and have given rise to right wing populist authoritarianism in the form of Trump.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 1:50 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


So you want centrism eliminated from the Democratic party?
posted by argybarg at 1:53 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ever since both Sanders and Warren endorsed Clinton and spoke for her at the convention, it is NOT "the Sanders/Warren wing" anymore. Unless you believe both long-experienced political activists were 'suckered'.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:54 PM on July 31, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'm confused. Are you genuinely interested in winning over holdouts on the left to vote for Clinton, or not?

I'm genuinely interested in having conversations with people interested in that. I'm also interested in calling people out (on Facebook, in real life, anywhere) who relentlessly, needlessly, endlessly make it about their needs over the needs of people who have actual skin in the game.

If you don't like my eye-rolling, then read Chomsky's thoughts (this has probably already posted, but if not, here's my contribution).
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 1:55 PM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


A national party has to accommodate a lot of viewpoints. So does a democratic nation. What about this do people not understand?
posted by argybarg at 1:55 PM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


Ever since both Sanders and Warren endorsed Clinton and spoke for her at the convention, it is NOT "the Sanders/Warren wing" anymore. Unless you believe both long-experienced political activists were 'suckered'.

Just because the politicians themselves have vouched for Clinton, that doesn't mean they'll support her proposals and actions in lockstep once she's elected. And the people who support those politicians are still out there. There can always be future progressive Democrats who will dissent, and thus that wing can be renamed accordingly.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:58 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Kaine requested that Yellen exempt regional banks and credit unions/community banks from some of the regulations that the big national banks are under, in terms of reporting daily liquidity and so on.

To come all the way back to this point... the largest credit union in America by assets is Navy Federal. $58.1B.

The 34th largest bank in the US by assets is Zions. If you look at the list, you find that the banks in this part of the list are mostly regionals, with some European banks' American toeholds mixed in (e.g. BBVA Compass, Deutschebank).

Most of the banks in this part of the list weren't ones that caused the 2008 debacle, tho they did have their own role in creating and selling mortgages up to Countrywide and others.

I don't think Kaine was wrong in pushing for keeping the smaller banks and the credit unions from regulations aimed at the "too big to fail" crowd. They're just different in their market and appeal. How Zions runs itself is very different from how JPMC runs itself.
posted by dw at 2:03 PM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's great that Hillary broadcast a lot of progressive ideas at the D convention -- debt-free college, expanding SS, etc. But I think she only had two concrete actions she could take pre-election to build trust with the Sanders/Warren wing: (1) VP nom, (2) helping kill the TPP.

This seems more like a refusal to be budged than it does staking out a real position.

1. What VP pick would satisfy the "Sanders/Warren wing?" Sanders and Warren didn't want it. Sherrod Brown and Corey Booker have Republican governors who would name Republicans to replace them in the senate, Castro is under investigation, and and and and and. Seriously, who could Clinton realistically have selected that would satisfy these hypothetical people?

2. Clinton does not currently hold a government position of any sort. How could she possibly help kill the TPP, other than through public statements that she does not support it? Which, of course, is a thing that she actually did.
posted by dersins at 2:04 PM on July 31, 2016 [46 favorites]


The VP pick is all fluff. More interesting is who she'll appoint to cabinet.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:06 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


If you don't like my eye-rolling, then read Chomsky's thoughts (this has probably already posted, but if not, here's my contribution).

Chomsky's arguments are among those that helped convince me.

I'm genuinely interested in having conversations with people interested in that. I'm also interested in calling people out (on Facebook, in real life, anywhere) who relentlessly, needlessly, endlessly make it about their needs over the needs of people who have actual skin in the game.

You seem to have confused me with someone else? I'm not talking about "making it about my needs." I'm offering a data point as to how you can win the argument with people who are open to the conversation but who perhaps aren't quite convinced yet. Many of those people, like me, have a knee-jerk reaction against the "lesser of two evils" argument, not because it hurts our precious widdle feelings but because it's been used for decades. Acknowledging that -- exactly as kyrademon does here -- is going to help you get more votes for Hillary Clinton.
posted by the return of the thin white sock at 2:06 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


I won't say it's easy to get on the ballot here in WA but it's not particularly hard. My ballot had a Libertarian for nearly every office. My ballot had no Greens. My district is very liberal by national standards.

Remember that in WA there's no party registration or affiliation for non-presidential elections; everything is "prefers X party."

The fact the Greens have been so scarce on the WA ballots really is puzzling given the Libertarians always having people lined up for the major state offices. And their utter silence in this state is damning given the long, long history of environmentalism in the Puget Sound area.
posted by dw at 2:08 PM on July 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


I think political reconciliation would be a hell of a lot easier if democracy consisted of more than just voting. Benjamin Barber has some important ideas on the subject.
posted by argybarg at 2:13 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


1. What VP pick would satisfy the "Sanders/Warren wing?" ... Warren didn't want it.

I hadn't read that about Warren, how do you know? Tom Perez, Labor Sec. was another progressive option. Hillary went for the economically conservative wing of the D party instead.

2. Clinton does not currently hold a government position of any sort. How could she possibly help kill the TPP

Promoting one of the few D Senators to VP who voted to fast-track the TPP is itself a pro-TPP signal. The Cllnton appttees to the D Platform Committee all voted to strip language specifically opposing the TPP from the party platform, and Clinton only made general comments about trade in her speech at the convention.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 2:14 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Anyway, I have no idea what everyone is suddenly fighting about, but geez people, you can be critical of a candidate and still support them. Could we all just take a few deep breaths and not act like each other is the enemy? It's getting awfully Captain America: Civil War in here.
posted by dw at 2:15 PM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


Well I'm not running for President, so I doubt I'll get more votes one way or the other.

The fact of the matter is, some people really, really, really need their egos stroked in order to get them to vote for the candidate that helps further propel their goals. It's okay to acknowledge that that is stupid and sucks, while also still stroking their ego.

We're into the 1,000+ comments part of the thread, so what we say here isn't going to affect too much. We're largely venting at each now. I just wish that people who said "what is the [x party] going to do to earn MY vote!" would say instead "what actionable thing can I do to further advance the change I want to see in the world."
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:16 PM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


The VP pick is all fluff. More interesting is who she'll appoint to cabinet.

VPs have been integral, cabinet-level positions in recent admins. The VP is second in line for POTUS, and kaine's young enough to be Hillary Clinton's successor.

It was a big deal to nominate an economically conservative Democrat for this position, it shouldn't be white washed.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 2:16 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


airing nerdy laundry:

Tim Kaine's voting and policy statements put him squarely in the center of the Democratic party. Explain to me why this is bad or inappropriate?
posted by argybarg at 2:19 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's getting awfully Captain America: Civil War in here.

Dibs on the guy with the metal arm.
posted by Salieri at 2:22 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


Are you genuinely interested in winning over holdouts on the left to vote for Clinton, or not?

If that were possible I would be interested in it but at this point I think the holdouts on the left are mostly unreachable through persuasion. They may come around in the voting booth when presented with the real possibility of a Trump presidency but argumentation is not going to do it.
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on July 31, 2016 [14 favorites]


To me, the Kaine appointment is pure political calculus.

Tim Kaine has an appeal to the kind of centrist who might lean Republican in another year, but dislikes Donald Trump - he seems like a genuinely nice guy. He is from Virginia, which is a crucial swing state.

Here is another place where I feel that the focus on holding Democrats feet to the fire by the left is misguided - Clinton would have been far more likely to pick a left-wing VP if she could be sure of the votes of former Bernie supporters. In the absence of such support, she has to appeal to moderates and centrists - those votes have to come from somewhere, and she is like me, probably more concerned about winning in November than anything else.
posted by peacheater at 2:24 PM on July 31, 2016 [20 favorites]


they're directly related to the "centrist" economic policies which depress living standards for the majority of Americans and have given rise to right wing populist authoritarianism in the form of Trump.

While centrist economic policies didn't help matters, it's way too reductive to say they're directly related to the rise of right wing populist authoritarianism. Racism and nativism have come up in the US well before Trump decided to run for president and way before the era of globalization. In the past, a lot of policy harmful to immigrants and minorities were passed, but they were always framed as attempts to restore "economic fairness" to American workers.
posted by FJT at 2:27 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


She may also be a centrist, or at least closer to the center than Bernie's voters. That describes me, too. There are also lots of Democratic voters to her right, and Democratic voters who hold a variety of positions a variety of issues.

This idea that only Bernie's voters need to be catered to is wrong-headed. And this idea that finding a way to represent multiple groups in a coalition is tantamount to evil? Also wrong-headed.
posted by argybarg at 2:27 PM on July 31, 2016 [28 favorites]


Tim Kaine's voting and policy statements put him squarely in the center of the Democratic party.

With the TPP fast track vote Kaine was one of 13 D Senators, with not signing Sherrod Brown's letter on curbing predatory payday lending he was one of 13 D Senators, with being friendly to "right to work"/anti-union laws as governor he was in a tiny minority of D governors...

I believe he's in the conservative wing of the D Party economically speaking, and holds dangerously centrist economic ideas, ones that lead to right wing populism.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 2:28 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


dangerously centrist

This is just I can't even
posted by dersins at 2:29 PM on July 31, 2016 [63 favorites]


dangerously centrist

There it is in a nutshell.
posted by argybarg at 2:31 PM on July 31, 2016 [14 favorites]


So in other words, the Democratic party must be ideologically pure, since anything to the right of you "lead[s] to right wing populism."
posted by argybarg at 2:31 PM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]


Hey, gotta watch out for those extremist moderates.
posted by dersins at 2:34 PM on July 31, 2016 [20 favorites]


airing nerdy laundry - are you talking about this payday lending letter or is there a different one?
posted by macfly at 2:35 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


and holds dangerously centrist economic ideas, ones that lead to rising right wing populism.

What led to rising rightwing populism is the Republican Party going for the Southern Strategy post CRA with Nixon and know-nothing/anti-government with Reagan. You can try to blame Clinton/Obama all you want but ultimately the blame for racist fascists lies with the racist fascists. As I said earlier, elections and policies are won with politicians and legislation that gets the majority of the vote. None of your dream ideal policies has come close for decades. The fact that Dems fought hard with a less left focus and finally won enough to advance to the ball a little bit doesn't make them evil or make them to blame for fascism. It makes them people who did their best against a much more conservative electorate to move forward.
posted by chris24 at 2:35 PM on July 31, 2016 [19 favorites]


It was always going to be Kaine:
People close to Clinton were telling me, as early as February, that there really wasn’t anyone else on their short list. The main reason Clinton chose Kaine is so simple as to be unbelievable: She thinks he could serve as president if she can’t, and didn’t think anyone else she talked to fit that criterion.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:37 PM on July 31, 2016 [27 favorites]


What is the deal with Tim Kaine and "Dad"?
posted by maurreen at 2:38 PM on July 31, 2016


You know that old parody of a conservative that has largely come true, that they stood astride the path of history with one hand raised, shouting "STOP!"? I begin to wonder if it's not true of the far Left, as well.

Yes, the evolution of global trade has fucked a lot of jobs and living standards in American towns that used to employ a lot of people with manufacturing jobs, etc. But I have trouble viewing this as the direct, causal result of a trade deal, or even a series of trade deals. The farther back you step, as an armchair historian (or professional, as the case may be; I don't know you and the internet is vast), the more these things begin to look like forces of nature, IME. And you don't fight a force of nature. You try to adapt to it, and save as many people as you can along the way.

This is not to say there aren't horrific provisions in the TPP -- if what I read on the internet is true (come the fuck on, I haven't read the thing), they are INDEED horrific -- but it is to say that we should be much more clear what we're fighting for when we oppose those provisions.

Are you agitating for a return to the past? Sorry, that's not going to happen, and you look ridiculous doing it. Meanwhile you're sabotaging the only people with political power who might be inclined to help you.

Or are you agitating for a more fair future? That is more interesting to me, and a lot harder to pin down. But I'd like to hear what that looks like, so long as it accepts the forces of nature as they are.

(As it happens, this is one of the main reasons I love HRC. She doesn't have the luxury of getting wrapped up in what might have been, so she doesn't. She deals with the world as it is, and tries to move forward.)
posted by schadenfrau at 2:39 PM on July 31, 2016 [25 favorites]


Tim Kaine is America's dad now
posted by yasaman at 2:40 PM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


What led to rising rightwing populism is the Republican Party going for the Southern Strategy post CRA the Southern Strategy post CRA with Nixon

That was many decades ago, which doesn't explain Trump's rise in 2016, nor why right wing populism is ascendent across half a dozen countries in Europe. Poor economic conditions have to be front and center, as well as the failed economic policies that have enjoyed consensus support.

This lack of seriousness about understanding and combatting right wing populism is disturbing.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 2:41 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


We're too busy fighting those militant moderates.
posted by dersins at 2:42 PM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


but because the Kremlin has wound up a propaganda machine it cannot stop.

Why does that sound so familiar?

sorry that was from the 'Russian expert' part of the thread. It - there are a lot of words in here.
posted by petebest at 2:42 PM on July 31, 2016


I believe he's in the conservative wing of the D Party economically speaking, and holds dangerously centrist economic ideas, ones that lead to right wing populism.

Tim Kaine's Ratings, some highlights:
Planned Parenthood Action Fund 100%
National Rifle Association 7%
AFL-CIO 100%
Family Research Council 0%
NAACP 96%
posted by PenDevil at 2:43 PM on July 31, 2016 [32 favorites]




But it's true, if the Democratic candidates aren't ideologically pure, the True Populists will themselves turn to the Right Wing Populists, right?

Sanders and Warren know they could continue have influence on the Clinton Administration after the election. Unless it becomes clear that they failed to bring their followers with you. So keep Raging Against the Machine, folks, you'll either get Full Trump or a Clinton who doesn't have to care about you anymore.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:43 PM on July 31, 2016


This lack of seriousness about understanding and combatting right wing populism is disturbing.

You're the person dismissing racism and the Republicans' original sin the Southern Strategy as the driving factor of Trump's appeal, but we're unserious?
posted by chris24 at 2:44 PM on July 31, 2016 [14 favorites]


accepts the forces of nature as they are.

If there's one idea in economics that's IMO more pernicious than any other it's that our current economic conditions are the result of "laws of nature" that are immutable.

We designed this system, it's been significantly different in the very recent past in America and it's currently different in other countries. All it takes to change it is some awareness and effort, and I think America's youth and growing immigrant population will change it.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 2:45 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Right on, peacheater!! Glad you made the leap.

Anyone else on the thread going to phone bank?? Super easy! Go to http://hillaryclinton.com/calls and log in. The info and scripts are all there, all you need is a computer and a phone.
posted by Sublimity at 2:45 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


This lack of seriousness about understanding and combatting right wing populism is disturbing.

What plan to "combat right wing populism" doesn't begin with defeating the right wing populists in November?
posted by peacheater at 2:45 PM on July 31, 2016 [52 favorites]


Here is another place where I feel that the focus on holding Democrats feet to the fire by the left is misguided - Clinton would have been far more likely to pick a left-wing VP if she could be sure of the votes of former Bernie supporters. In the absence of such support, she has to appeal to moderates and centrists

Feeling this. Clinton is known for listening, and what the Buster bloc has screamed at her is that there is no way for her to win them over. Well, she still intends to win this election. (and I know that fact alone is part of why some people hate her)

She's going to play for the votes that she can get, and those are in the center. The Busters in my life don't seem to grasp that she isn't running to be President of Portland, but of the entire United States. Coalition building is compromise defined. This is a big damn country. No one gets elected nationally without a diverse coalition, and idealogical purity demands make coalition building needlessly difficult. Centrism is not a dirty word, even if the hard left uses it that way. Just like "liberal" is not a dirty word, no matter how the hard right sneers it.
posted by EatTheWeak at 2:45 PM on July 31, 2016 [36 favorites]


She thinks he could serve as president if she can’t, and didn’t think anyone else she talked to fit that criterion.

I feel like I've stepped into a specific episode of The West Wing.
posted by Francis at 2:46 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hillary Clinton giving Tim Kaine her milkshake order at Grandpa's Cheese Barn on bus tour Ashland Ohio

Dad, make sure you get the one with the bendy straw!
posted by zachlipton at 2:46 PM on July 31, 2016


Thanks Sublimity. I'm not able to reach most callers, but just had a great interaction with another guy who seemed super grateful that I called him and a very enthusiastic Clinton supporter. He was just like, tell me what to do, I'll do it. I'm telling everyone around me the only way forward is to vote Clinton etc. etc. Try making some calls, so far the water's fine.
posted by peacheater at 2:47 PM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]


You're the person dismissing racism

Nobody's dismissing racism, it's just that the combo of blaming racial minorities and foreigners for poor economic conditions should be obvious. These basic elements of xenophobic right wing populism have been on repeat throughout history and are currently playing simultaneously across multiple countries.

It's the centrist apologists here who are denying the symbiosis.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 2:48 PM on July 31, 2016


If improving economic conditions for the average citizen is unimportant, Trump or a successor of his will surely come up with a bread-and-circuses substitute for genuine economic prosperity. That's one way the Ukraine conflict is working for his buddy-not-buddy Putin.
posted by XMLicious at 2:49 PM on July 31, 2016


What is the deal with Tim Kaine and "Dad"?

Tim Kaine is Dad. He tells Dad jokes, does Dad things, embarasses you in Dad ways. He is a man who you want to be your father.
posted by Talez at 2:49 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Peacheater, that's pretty much what happened to me. Lots of people don't pick up an unfamiliar number, so I left lots of voice mails--very easy, no pushback there. The few people who did pick up were kind and happy and willing to volunteer.

Definitely encourage folks who aren't sure about it to just try it. You can do it... Yes you can!
posted by Sublimity at 2:50 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I can't tell whether concern trolling replaces "bargaining" or "depression" in the Five Stages of Internet Political Grief. Probably not depression, at least not for Democrats.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:51 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's the centrist apologists here who are denying the symbiosis.

omg, I'm dying here...
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:51 PM on July 31, 2016 [12 favorites]


Nobody's dismissing racism, it's just that the combo of blaming racial minorities and foreigners for poor economic conditions should be obvious. These basic elements of xenophobic right wing populism have been on repeat throughout history and are currently playing simultaneously across multiple countries.

It's the centrist apologists here who are denying the symbiosis.


As one of the "centrist apologists" here, I am not in any way denying that the two are linked.

I just don't happen to think our economic situation would be in any way improved by having Trump as President. Since I believe the economy would be better under Clinton, that poor people would suffer less under Clinton, that the economy would be fairer under Clinton, I believe that electing her would reduce right-wing populism (which I agree is linked to economic conditions).
posted by peacheater at 2:52 PM on July 31, 2016 [15 favorites]


What is the deal with Tim Kaine and "Dad"?

He just came across as a stereotypical "dad" character. John Oliver thinks so, and a lot of us picked up the same vibe in the DNC threads.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:53 PM on July 31, 2016


Dammit Talez!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:54 PM on July 31, 2016


It's the centrist apologists here who are denying the symbiosis.

Pretty sure we had a Republican in '64 and an Independent in '68 running racially charged campaigns prior to large scale adoption of neoliberal policies.
posted by chris24 at 2:54 PM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


Not a parody, schadenfrau! In 1955, conservatism (or National Review—same diff then) stands athwart history, yelling Stop.
posted by dogrose at 2:58 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


From January. Gallup:

% of Americans that identify as conservative: 37%
% of Americans that identify as moderate: 35%
% of Americans that identify as liberal: 24%

Help me understand any model that will allow a liberal leaning government to exist that doesn't involve strong compromises with moderates? When moderates and liberals split, its an easy win for the conservatives.

I know from past experience that math arguments tend to be dismissed by the far left and far right. Elections come down to numbers in the end. Moderates plus liberals beat conservatives. Liberals on their own lose.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:01 PM on July 31, 2016 [40 favorites]


1. What VP pick would satisfy the "Sanders/Warren wing?" ... Warren didn't want it.

I hadn't read that about Warren, how do you know? Tom Perez, Labor Sec. was another progressive option. Hillary went for the economically conservative wing of the D party instead.


She said it multiple times. (I could get into a tangent on overriding the wishes of a woman by not listening to her, but...) Plus, everyone who kept calling for her to be VP pick is blitheringly ignorant of MA state politics. Making Warren a VP pick would have been a great way to lose a Senate seat. (MA's governor is currently Republican. And barring that, we're the state that elected Scott fucking Brown to Ted Kennedy's seat because the MassDems are morons that keep pushing Coakley, who no one around the city actually likes.)
posted by ultranos at 3:01 PM on July 31, 2016 [20 favorites]


More Tim Kaine dad references because America needs them.
posted by Talez at 3:02 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Apparently the dream is not forming a coalition with centrists and moderates, it's wiping them off the map (or, more pleasantly, converting them all to pure leftism). Then, and only then, can we move on to clearing out the conservatives.

This is just pure solipsism and entitlement, for the record. Feel free to hold leftist views and hold to them passionately, but seeing "dangerous centrists" and "centrist apologists" as the real enemy shows a real misunderstanding of how large-scale democracy works.
posted by argybarg at 3:10 PM on July 31, 2016 [44 favorites]


but seeing "dangerous centrists" and "centrist apologists" as the real enemy shows a real misunderstanding of how large-scale democracy works.

I thought it was all about whoever was most passionate determined by who is willing to piss off the most people by being an obstructionist twit in support of their goal despite more people wanting something else. At least that's what people were implying last week.
posted by Talez at 3:15 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, we are honestly a long way away from having left-wing views be mainstream in American political discourse. Scratch the surface of most Americans, and you will find fairly toxic views towards working people. I live in one of the most liberal parts of one of the most liberal states of the union and I am constantly amazed at some of the conversations I have: everyone is so concerned about their taxes and "wasteful government spending". Republicans have very effectively employed tactics of divide-and-conquer - everyone's too busy talking about how much money MBTA employees make to think about putting money into infrastructure or increasing taxes on the 1%.
posted by peacheater at 3:15 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think the holdouts on the left are mostly unreachable through persuasion.

But I was a holdout until very recently. I became open to persuasion primarily by a series of conversations with a very centrist Democrat. We both disagree with each other on a lot (and have for many years; when we first met decades ago, he was a Reagan Republican), but we both have the utmost respect for each other. That's where the conversation started.

The result is that I'm now voting for Clinton, and a week ago I wasn't. My comments were made in the spirit of helping convince other holdouts where possible, because I assumed that's an objective. It is, isn't it? Plenty of people in this (and other threads) have made it clear that they want to be open and respectful in reaching out to Republicans who are open to being convinced by figuring out where the terms of those conversations need to start from. I was under the impression that the same people might be interested in also doing that with people who are open to being convinced on the left (particularly those, like me, who were appalled by the BoB'ers antics at the convention).

Seriously, I've been won over, and I was even feeling rather enthusiastic about it till I commented here. Being mocked and dismissed by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates isn't going to change my vote in November, and it won't change my decision to try to convince others like me in the meantime, but I would suggest that deriding people who've actually come over to your side isn't a great way to, you know, maximize the number of people who come over to your side.
posted by the return of the thin white sock at 3:17 PM on July 31, 2016 [40 favorites]




Dibs on the guy with the metal arm.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure he's a Russian plant.
posted by dinty_moore at 3:19 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't know, I'm pretty sure he's a Russian plant.

No. That's the guy with the terrible toupee.
posted by Talez at 3:20 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


the return of the thin white sock: Thanks for your comment. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic about the odds of persuading people because I mostly interact with the most vocal of anti-Clinton leftists. Who are likely going to skew unpersuadable. It's good to remember there are undecided left-leaning people out there who aren't in the Redditesque BoB camp.
posted by Justinian at 3:23 PM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


I love that the first two tweets in response to Jeb!'s are a guy asking "What are you doing tonight?" and "Want to get tacos?". Jeb! has to find something to fill his time now that he isn't spending $150million to win 3 delegates.
posted by Justinian at 3:24 PM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


the return of the thin white sock, thanks for your contributions to this thread and I hope you can forgive me if I have been derisive to you or others in a similar position.
posted by peacheater at 3:26 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm pessimistic because I think this whole disastrous election cycle has come of people gradually losing the notion that democracy consists of anything less than getting everything you want. This feels like a petulant nation having a consumerist temper tantrum and dressing it up as pious concerns.

I have no respect left for those who do not engage in the difficult work of building consensus and getting the details right. The rest is noise.
posted by argybarg at 3:26 PM on July 31, 2016 [19 favorites]


Just in general, though - my experience with military folks who need to do mental calculus to figure out if someone is in an in-group or an out-group before reacting - being military is essentially (sorry) a trump card. Race and religion start mattering a lot less if they're military. Between this, Donald Trump's trumpishness about international matters/POWs/'losing', I'm wondering if the military is going to start skewing heavily towards Clinton.
posted by dinty_moore at 3:27 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Won't someone think of the poor centrists, pushed out of the D Party by leftist purists?

Good grief, argybarg, you have nearly the entire leadership of the D party representing you.

Some on the Warren/Sanders wing wanted to be represented on the D ticket, which is pretty normal when there's a primary challenge as successful as Sanders's, but Hillary picked someone equally economically conservative or maybe even moreso.

Can you distinguish this situation from throwing a "temper tantrum" about "getting anything less than everything you want"?
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 3:37 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Some examples of it being "pretty normal" to put someone like your challenger on the ticket? Should be easy if its normal.
posted by Justinian at 3:40 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hey, so, it looks to me like there's been virtually no response to the pro-Trump New York Post's publication of the Melania Trump modeling photos. Has that been all of your experience so far? I've been waiting to see it pop up somewhere in my social media so I can drop in "I won't ever vote for Trump, but good for Melania for having a successful modeling career" comment but so far I've seen nothing positive or negative. Anyone else see any responses?
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:41 PM on July 31, 2016


I don't recall Hillary Clinton supporters demanding that she be VP when she lost the 2008 primary by a far smaller margin than Sanders did.
posted by peacheater at 3:42 PM on July 31, 2016 [15 favorites]


Reid Statement on Republican Leaders’ Failure to Revoke their Endorsement of Donald Trump
Nevada Senator Harry Reid released the following statement on the cowardice of Senator McConnell’s and Speaker Ryan’s failure to revoke their endorsements of Donald Trump:

“Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan approvingly spoke at Donald Trump’s convention, endorsed Donald Trump for president and believe he is mentally fit to sit in the Oval Office. Occasional statements that do nothing to repudiate Donald Trump’s words and actions are spineless. Anything short of revoking their endorsements is cowardice.

“It took less than two days for Senator McConnell to call for then-Rep. Todd Akin to end his Senate campaign citing Akin’s ‘deeply offensive error at a time when his candidacy carries great consequence for the future of our country.’ Donald Trump’s candidacy carries even greater consequence, yet Senator McConnell remains silent.

“This shouldn’t be hard. Donald Trump is a sexist and racist man who insults Gold Star parents, stokes fear of Muslims and sows hatred of Latinos. He should not be president and Republican leaders have a moral responsibility to say so‎.”
Remember, this guy was a prizefighter. He definitely knows how to come out swinging.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:42 PM on July 31, 2016 [63 favorites]


I've seen some tweets from my feminist circles calling out the NYPost for essentially slut-shaming Melania.
posted by dw at 3:43 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


McConnell and Ryan both repudiated Trump’s words against the Khans; both continue to endorse him.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:45 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was under the impression that Trump had had the NYPost publish that article to get the focus off his awful behavior re: the Khans.
posted by stolyarova at 3:46 PM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


I've seen some tweets from my feminist circles calling out the NYPost for essentially slut-shaming Melania.

I think this is the best progressive response. Coming to her defense defuses the inevitable "see liberals are just as bad" response from TrumpCo.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:46 PM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yep, I've seen nothing negative about Melania. A mix of "So what?", "Good for her", and "What's Trump up to now?"
posted by stolyarova at 3:47 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't recall Hillary Clinton supporters demanding that she be VP when she lost the 2008 primary by a far smaller margin than Sanders did.

Oh, they totally did. The thing is that Clinton conceded before Bernie sort of did, and far more definitively. So there were nearly three months of grieving and bargaining before the convention started. We didn't have that this year.
posted by dinty_moore at 3:47 PM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


Tim Kaine is not a conservative Democrat. This was not Al Gore picking Joe Lieberman.

The strong impression I'm hearing is not "I wish Kaine were more of a lefty, that would have pleased me." It's that Clinton delivered the final insult to Sanders supporters by picking a centrist, and that centrists are the real danger. Therefore Kaine, and therefore Clinton, should be regarded as unacceptable to any correctly-thinking progressive.

And my point is that Clinton has a huge party to please, and a huge nation to make her case to. I also think she has a responsibility to pick someone she wants to work with, and who she thinks would make a good president. I think any one of the above concerns, let along all together, rightly outweighs making sure Sanders' supporters get their candidate.
posted by argybarg at 3:48 PM on July 31, 2016 [22 favorites]


Trump Adviser Defends Nude Photos of Melania — And He Isn’t Wrong:
Trump and Miller are right to issue what’s basically a shruggie emoji as an official statement. Using nude photos to shame another person is crass and tacky, and in the case of revenge porn, an online scourge; using photos of Melania to try and shame her husband by proxy is even worse, as if whatever she's done in her life reflects on her husband.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:48 PM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


I just finished reading this entire thread and I wish I could be one of the positive people. The comparison was made that Trump is shit and Clinton is chocolate ice cream. To me it looks more like a choice between shit and shit with corn in it. At least you can pick some corn out of one of the shits and get some sustenance but the shit merchants are still just giving us normal people shit to choose from.

Then there is third party, that's like saying you don't get a menu but when your food arrives at the table, guess what?

I just want this shit to be over so I can get my corn and move on.
posted by chaz at 3:48 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


McConnell and Ryan both repudiated Trump’s words against the Khans; both continue to endorse him.

Then it's no repudiation at all.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:49 PM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


To be fair, corn ice cream is delicious.
posted by stolyarova at 3:50 PM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


A journalist (Brian Stelter) finally taking Trump's campaign to task.
STELTER: That's not what Mr. Khan's speech was about on Thursday. Let me put on screen a statement from Mr. Trump last night. He seemed to be trying to clean up the ABC interview. In the statement last night, Trump said the following: He said that "Mr. Khan has no right to speak the way he did on stage." Let me get the exact quote, because I don't want to misquote Mr. Trump. Let's see if we can put it on the screen here. He said that, Mr. Trump, "while I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan who has never met me has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim that I have never read the Constitution, which is false and say many other inaccurate things." The First Amendment to the Constitution allows Mr. Khan the right to stand on stage and say whatever he wants. Why would Mr. Trump say he doesn't have that right.

MILLER: That's not what Mr. Trump is saying at all.

STELTER: That's what the statement said.
It just got better from there. A journalist actually looked into his pants and found he had some cajones after all.
posted by Talez at 3:51 PM on July 31, 2016 [42 favorites]


I think ignoring it is probably the best revenge.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:53 PM on July 31, 2016


Trump is saying so many awful and crazy things that at this point the media can't keep up. It's surreal. The Ukraine comment alone would sink any other candidate and its not even the worst thing he said in the last two days.
posted by Justinian at 3:54 PM on July 31, 2016 [15 favorites]


Whoops my last comment was in reference to something 100 comments ago but also probably good advice for all comments.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:54 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Since the dawn of the modern primary system in 1972, here are all the times in which a major party ticket consisted of the top two presidential candidates in delegates from that year's primaries:

1980 -- Reagan/Bush
2004 -- Kerry/Edwards

In both cases, the VP was a distant second. Reagan won 44 states and territories. Kerry won 51.
posted by dw at 3:55 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Tim Kaine is not a conservative Democrat.

I didn't see your link supporting that:

Kaine scores an average of -37 (-100 is the most liberal, and 100 is the most conservative).

Whatever the exact metric, it looks like he scored more conservative than the average D.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 3:56 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Ukraine comment alone would sink any other candidate and its not even the worst thing he said in the last two days.
"He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want," Trump said in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."

"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" Stephanopoulos responded, in a reference to Crimea, which Putin took from Ukraine in early 2014.
Looks like Stephanopoulos stumped the Trump.
posted by Talez at 3:57 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Since the dawn of the modern primary system in 1972, here are all the times in which a major party ticket consisted of the top two presidential candidates in delegates from that year's primaries:

I was trying to use a Socratic question to lead him to conclude for himself that no it is not, in fact, normal to put your opponent or his (and until now it was always his!) ideological equivalent on your ticket. But this works too!
posted by Justinian at 4:00 PM on July 31, 2016


I'm assuming Trump made up the NFL letter thing because he realized his tweet made it sound like he was afraid to go up against the NFL so he just made up shit to make it sound like it was the NFL that was afraid of going up against him.
Dear Mr. Trump:

I feel you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters. 

Very truly yours,

The National Football League
posted by kirkaracha at 4:03 PM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]


I do not look at this image and see it as showing Tim Kaine as a conservative Democrat.

But let's say he is. Fiscally conservative Democrats are also part of the party.
posted by argybarg at 4:04 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


shit merchants are still just giving us normal people shit to choose from

This is the attitude that's so frustrating to me. It wasn't "shit merchants" or "the elite" or Debbie Wasserman Schultz who selected Clinton as the Democratic nominee. It was Democratic voters, especially voters of color (it is my understanding that Sanders would've narrowly one has only white people's votes been counted). Some of us Democrats genuinely like Clinton, and there are more of us than there are Democrats who don't like her.

Like Sanders delegates who were chanted-over during Hillary's speech. They weren't being silenced by "The Man" or the Party Machine. They weren't being silenced at all. But other people's voices were also being heard, and there happened to be more of them. That's how democracy works. The fact that you lost doesn't necessarily mean the game was rigged.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:06 PM on July 31, 2016 [66 favorites]


National Journal Liberal Vote Rankings - U.S. Senate, 2013
Rank, Member, Score (Economic, Social, Foreign)
35 Christopher Coons 69.5 (70, 68, 66)
35 Timothy Kaine 69.5 (53, 68, 71)
37 Bernie Sanders 68.7 (82, 66, 51)
38 Jeff Merkley 68 (75, 64, 58)

So yes, Kaine is an economic centrist, but National Journal has him ranking with Bernie as a liberal overall.
posted by dw at 4:06 PM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


McConnell and Ryan both repudiated Trump’s words against the Khans

No they did not. They expressed sympathy for the Khans as parents who'd lost a son in battle and referred to earlier statements about the Muslim ban. They said nothing about Trump or his attacks on the Khans.
posted by chris24 at 4:07 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


> Whatever the exact metric, it looks like he scored more conservative than the average D.

He's been scored 100% or in the high 90s by groups like Planned Parenthood and the NAACP and 0 or single digits by groups like the FRC and NRA. What is your definition of conservative that excludes issues like this?
posted by rtha at 4:07 PM on July 31, 2016 [15 favorites]


It is so obvious that Trump literally knows nothing about geopolitics, maybe even geography. I wish broadcasters would start trolling him:

"Many people have criticised the approach of Julie London, the UK ambassador to Crimea's Riverine province. Would you say that President Trump would be better than Julie London in Crimea River?"

– "Crimea River?"

"Yes, I cried a river over you."
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:07 PM on July 31, 2016 [24 favorites]


I could go deeper on Bernie and why he got outrun by the "centrists," but the mods have been clear about not re-prosecuting the primaries in the Blue.
posted by dw at 4:11 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


It must be noted that many of the most fervent Post-Bernie leftists are Single Issue Voters; they're not any more likely to vote for someone supporting a FPP treaty in any form than a "Pro-Lifer" would vote for anyone opposing overturning Roe V. Wade. And they'll both be quite comfortable voting for Trump.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:12 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Dibs on the guy with the metal arm.

I want to be whomever gets to kiss Chadwick Boseman at the end

somebody's gotta do it, and that one's gonna be me
posted by schroedinger at 4:13 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


they're not any more likely to vote for someone supporting a FPP treaty...

MeFi could use an FPP treaty.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:15 PM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]


NO FPP!

NO FPP!
posted by stolyarova at 4:16 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


UFA! UFA!
posted by chris24 at 4:18 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


HILL-FAR-RY!
HILL-FAR-RY!
posted by Talez at 4:21 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


can I blame autocorrect for turning TPP into FPP?
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:21 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Strategic Snark Limitation Treaty
posted by XMLicious at 4:21 PM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


Obviously the only FPP treaty we need is the Treaty of Westphalia.
posted by zachlipton at 4:23 PM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


No Aggressive Fighting 'Tween Amigos please!
posted by stolyarova at 4:24 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


Floor motion to respectfully ask the chairs to correct onefellswoop's autocorrect error and clean up the aisle.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:25 PM on July 31, 2016


Though I am highly amused
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:26 PM on July 31, 2016


So apparently James Woods is hopping into the fray now and the human cheeto is retweeting him. I don't know they didn't get Woods to come to the RNC. Just run a trail of candy from California to Ohio.
posted by Talez at 4:29 PM on July 31, 2016


That Stelter interview Talez linked to is great. He calls out the dog whistling.
STELTER: You keep mentioning radical Islamic terrorism as if that's somehow linked to Mr. Khan. Why do you keep responding that way when I mention him?

MILLER: Because that's the broader debate that we're having. The broader debate that we're having is about the screening and the vetting that we're having for people who are coming into this country --

STELTER: But that has nothing to do with this family, with this Muslim American family.

MILLER: No, this is what the whole broader debate is about right now. This is not about Mr. Trump and Mr. Khan, this is about Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:32 PM on July 31, 2016 [13 favorites]


James Woods is hopping into the fray now and the human cheeto is retweeting him

And accusing Hillary and the Dems of voter fraud. I'll say it again, the ugly post-election reaction of Trump and Trumpsters to Clinton's hopefully clear win might be more damaging to the future of the Republican Party than his campaign.
posted by chris24 at 4:33 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Voter fraud" doesn't mean fraudulent voting anymore. The republicans have redefined the term to mean when African Americans don't vote the way you want them to, sadly some on the left have embraced this new definition.
posted by peeedro at 4:42 PM on July 31, 2016 [18 favorites]


Talez, you didn't quote far enough.
“He’s not going into Ukraine, O.K., just so you understand,” Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee, said when the issue came up. “He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want.”

“Well, he’s already there, isn’t he?” Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted.

“O.K., well, he’s there in a certain way,” Mr. Trump replied. “But I’m not there. You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama with all the strength that you’re talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this. In the meantime, he’s going away. He take — takes Crimea.”
That last part is just floundering gibberish. "He take Crimea"? "I'm not there"? "You have Obama there"? What the hell is he talking about?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:45 PM on July 31, 2016 [23 favorites]


i'm sure what he meant to say is that he's not all there
posted by pyramid termite at 4:46 PM on July 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama with all the strength that you’re talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this.

Dude, you got a little Palin in your Trump word salad there.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:47 PM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


I think he's trying to say it wouldn't have happened if he'd been president. And Crimea is next because he's not president. But I do speak Jive.
posted by chris24 at 4:47 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


He means that if he were there (in the White House) Putin wouldn't be there (in Crimea). I speak... dammt these tablets take too long to type on.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:49 PM on July 31, 2016


OK Chris24, explain this part: In the meantime, he’s going away. He take — takes Crimea.”

Putin is going away and taking Crimea with him? Where is Putin going? How can he take Crimeas?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:50 PM on July 31, 2016


That's where he means that Crimea is next. Putin is going to do what he wants and take Crimea.
posted by chris24 at 4:52 PM on July 31, 2016


...He already kind of did, though?
posted by stolyarova at 4:53 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm not saying he's right about what he's trying to say, I'm just translating. :P
posted by chris24 at 4:55 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can you imagine attempting to negotiate ANYTHING with Trump on the other side of the table? He speaks in such garbled word salad that you'll leave thinking you've got a reasonable agreement, but he will have said and agreed to literally nothing. Plausible deniability through obscurity is how his business dealings must operate. No wonder he bilks people regularly.
posted by stolyarova at 4:55 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


I actually think he doesn't know Crimea is part of Ukraine.
posted by chris24 at 4:57 PM on July 31, 2016 [20 favorites]


Is it wrong to agree with about 80% of what Bill Maher says?
posted by Talez at 4:58 PM on July 31, 2016


I trust Tim Kaine on bank regulation. As a lawyer he sued banks on behalf of people discriminated against by banks and people given predatory loans. His concerns about how we regulate small credit unions and local banks vs big banks are echoed by people in minority and poor communities. We want to make sure that we don't drive what were mostly innocent bystanders in the financial crisis out of business for the sins of Chase, Wells Fargo and other huge banks. Especially when those banks often provide financial services in communities where the big banks still discriminate.
posted by humanfont at 5:01 PM on July 31, 2016 [40 favorites]


Well then Trump goes on to say: “The people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were, and you have to look at that, also.”

It's a really weird geopolitical viewpoint. I mean I don't think that Crimea had an election and invited Putin to send troops in because they hated being a part of The Ukraine. So let's say that Trump wins the Presidency and Canada invades Minnesotan and some Minnesotans decide they are fine with that. Would that be OK?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:01 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is it wrong to agree with about 80% of what Bill Maher says?

I generally agree with about 80% of what Bill Maher says. It's the other 20% that drives me nuts. I suppose this experience should make me empathize with the remaining Bernie or Busters.
posted by zachlipton at 5:02 PM on July 31, 2016 [9 favorites]


I generally agree with about 80% of what Bill Maher says. It's the other 20% that drives me nuts. I suppose this experience should make me empathize with the remaining Bernie or Busters.

Like I'm watching the Hillary speech episode and he just drops "f*g" into the conversation casually and I'm like "what?!?"
posted by Talez at 5:04 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]



I generally agree with about 80% of what Bill Maher says. It's the other 20% that drives me nuts.


Lately I just can't with him. His over-the-top anti-Muslim stance is too much for me. I used to really enjoy the show but with every Terrorist attack here and abroad, he has become more and more paranoid.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:05 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


It would be a better analogy if Minnesota were 67% Norwegian, 84% of Minnesotans spoke Norwegian as their native language, and Norway took over Minnesota, I guess. My husband's an ethnic Russian from Belarus and he thinks Putin wants the shipping access Crimea gives him, but doesn't think he wants the other former Soviet Socialist Republics. We'll see.
posted by stolyarova at 5:05 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clinton campaign donation algorithm data point - donated $50, just had an email for $38, so that would be .75 of the previous donation. HOWEVER - almost immediately after the $50 donation, I had a text asking for $45.

I hadn't ever donated to a campaign before. I hadn't realized the follow up asking for more would be SO FAST. I mean, I expected I'd hear from them again in a week or so.
posted by hilaryjade at 5:07 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hillary Clinton giving Tim Kaine her milkshake order at Grandpa's Cheese Barn on bus tour Ashland Ohio

I'll see that and raise you: "@TimKaine playing "Wagon Wheel" on 1 of 6 harmonicas at this hour on his bus per aide familiar with harmonica music en route Cleveland"
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 5:07 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think he's mainly really worried about the increasing tension with Putin as the new Big Bad because he's afraid we'll be treated worse in the United States as a result (he has no accent, but a very Russian name, and obviously that's my last name now too).
posted by stolyarova at 5:08 PM on July 31, 2016


Dublin pub decorates urinal with Donald Trump's portrait You have to see the picture to appreciate it. It's a trough with his picture on the supporting wall so you can pee on his face. They do promise to take it down if he gets elected though.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:09 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


So let's say that Trump wins the Presidency and Canada invades Minnesotan and some Minnesotans decide they are fine with that. Would that be OK?

Speaking as a Minnesotan, I welcome our new Canadian overlords.
posted by localhuman at 5:10 PM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


HOWEVER - almost immediately after the $50 donation, I had a text asking for $45.


Can confirm. S.O. had the same experience.

This reverse engineering is my favorite part of the campaign.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:12 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]


And on the topic of bathrooms,

Americans big buyers of Chinese-made 'Dump with Trump' toilet paper
“At the start, orders were for around 100 rolls a time, but now we’re getting orders for 5,000 rolls,” a saleswoman from the company told China Daily on Tuesday.

Rolls sell for about $0.5 (£0.35) each, and buyers can choose from three Donald Trump facial expressions: smiling, pointing and pouting. [snip]

Among the American buyers is US women’s national football team star Sydney Leroux, who posted her husband’s 'pouting Trump' toilet paper purchase on her Instagram account.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:14 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]



This is the attitude that's so frustrating to me. It wasn't "shit merchants" or "the elite" or Debbie Wasserman Schultz who selected Clinton as the Democratic nominee. It was Democratic voters, especially voters of color (it is my understanding that Sanders would've narrowly one has only white people's votes been counted). Some of us Democrats genuinely like Clinton, and there are more of us than there are Democrats who don't like her.


In your opinion is the American political system healthy? It generally respects all viewpoints and does the will of the people? It's not beholden to the interests of corporations and the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else? From where I stand it seems pretty bad.

You bring up voters of color, I'm guessing to shame me for not liking the process or any of the candidates by invoking the more vulnerable in society and saying how dare I go against their wishes? But in reality only 14% of registered Democrats participated in the primaries, and less than that number of registered minority voters voted. So something like 90% of voters of color felt that no candidate was worth voting for in the primaries.

I'm sorry that you're frustrated with my attitude, and I'm glad you found a candidate you respect and want to vote for, but for me and what seems to be a lot of other people around the nation, a broken system has again made us not enthusiastic about our choices.
posted by chaz at 5:20 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


Among the American buyers is US women’s national football team star Sydney Leroux, who posted her husband’s 'pouting Trump' toilet paper purchase on her Instagram account.

Me, I ain't putting that face anywhere near Mrs. Fubbs' parlor
posted by Countess Elena at 5:22 PM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


So something like 90% of voters of color felt that no candidate was worth voting for in the primaries.

Or they liked 'em both. Or they read a poll and figured their vote wasn't likely to matter. Or, hell, they had to work on Election Day.
posted by box at 5:23 PM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]


In your opinion is the American political system healthy?

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
-- H. L. Mencken
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 5:23 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


No. If you say that x has a 70% chance of happening in 10 places, and it happens in all of them, you did not call it correctly. You almost certainly massively understated the probability of x.

In terms of election prediction, that's not how the failures distribute themselves.

What is far more likely to happen is you get 10/10 the first year, 9/10 in the next election two years later, 10/10 again at the next election another two years later.

Doing good right? Way over 70% correct. Woo-hoo!

Then, in the fourth succeeding election, you get them ALL wrong.

As dfan points out, these variations that throw election predictions off are not just random, independent events. They are massively correlated.

Also it is worth pointing out--since we refer to these polls and poll aggregators often, and often pin our hopes and fears on them--that predicting U.S. elections is far from easy and far from certain. So much depends on turnout, and that is difficult or impossible to predict. And all that goes double when you are many months out from the election and the polling numbers are anywhere close to being even.

Many grains of salt are needed when looking at any of these predictions.

posted by flug at 5:28 PM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


The comparison was made that Trump is shit and Clinton is chocolate ice cream. To me it looks more like a choice between shit and shit with corn in it.

This really isn't hard. One of two people is going to be president. One of them will cause endless suffering that we can easily predict and a lot that we can't. The other one will cause significant improvements in real people's lives, and will definitely not be as progressive as people would ideally prefer.

I seriously don't understand how this isn't obvious to you by this point. I don't even know why I'm really bothering to reply to this "both sides are the same" shit. I mean, Jesus. I guess I'm happy for you that you're in a privileged enough position in your life where you aren't absolutely terrified, viscerally and personally, for what a Trump presidency would mean for you, and I'm a little saddened that you apparently also don't know a single friend who is similarly terrified.

Though, after reading this comment, you better damn well not claim ignorance of this in the future. Because here I am, right here, a real trans woman, someone you may meet someday, telling you that it's a matter of literal life and death to Me Personally that you vote for Hillary.
posted by odinsdream at 5:29 PM on July 31, 2016 [107 favorites]


if you come to a politics thread to quote Mencken, it just shows that you're too cynical to participate meaningfully.
posted by murphy slaw at 5:32 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'd love to see Hillary/Kaine adopt Oregon's vote by mail process as part of their Voter Access initiatives. Every two years (or more, since we have state / special elections also), I'm reminded how much better it is here.

Hopefully the bullshit around the VRA causes some sort of national standard for voting access that states are required to meet in exchange for ... something, government contracts or whatever.
posted by mrzarquon at 5:33 PM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]


That last part is just floundering gibberish. "He take Crimea"? "I'm not there"? "You have Obama there"? What the hell is he talking about?

Basically Obama is weak so Putin took the Crimea from the Ukrainians, but Putin isn't going to move into Ukraine proper [aside from the current incursions into the Donbass border regions which I assume Cheetoface isn't aware of].

I'm no Russia expert but the Crimean peninsula can probably be considered more Russian than Ukrainian, in that it was literally gifted to the Ukrainian SSR in living memory:

"It was somewhat symbolic, somewhat trying to reshuffle the centralized system and also, full disclosure, Nikita Khrushchev was very fond of Ukraine," she [Nina Khruschev] tells NPR's David Greene. "So I think to some degree it was also a personal gesture toward his favorite republic. He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine."
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 5:34 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


if you come to a politics thread to quote Mencken, it just shows that you're too cynical to participate meaningfully.

I'd say cynical enough to participate constructively, but YMMV.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:35 PM on July 31, 2016 [3 favorites]


In your opinion is the American political system healthy? It generally respects all viewpoints and does the will of the people?

Yes? I mean I wish candidates didn't have to spend so much time fundraising and I do think we should overturn Citizens United. On the other hand, the Kochs are not happy with this year's Republican nominee, and Hillary Clinton lost in 2008 despite being just as much the "establishment" favorite as she was this year.

Unlike many MeFites, I think, I actually know a LOT of Republicans. I pretty much only know other Democrats online, actually. So yeah, my experience is the the political system pretty much does the will of the people, though I don't particularly agree with it a lot of the time. In my bubble I am the outnumbered lefty, but I accept that when Republicans win local races, it's because more people voted for them and agree with them, wrongheaded as it seems to me.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:37 PM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]




3 a.m. | The SIMPSONS: "Marge and Homer Simpson wrestle with the choice in this election."
posted by homunculus at 5:37 PM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


I just finished reading this entire thread and I wish I could be one of the positive people. The comparison was made that Trump is shit and Clinton is chocolate ice cream. To me it looks more like a choice between shit and shit with corn in it. At least you can pick some corn out of one of the shits and get some sustenance but the shit merchants are still just giving us normal people shit to choose from.

One point you are missing is that Trump is abnormal and terrible. He is in no sense a normal candidate. If you think the normal standard is shit then that makes Trump radioactive waste.

I can see why you'd consider Clinton unappetising (although I am prepared to argue against that). But the last candidate for President that was as toxic as Donald Trump was George Wallace the segregationist independent. And frankly at least Wallace had some experience governing.
posted by Francis at 5:38 PM on July 31, 2016 [32 favorites]


I came to this thread to snark and chew bubblegum, and I'm all out of... oh wait, there's another pack.

You got lucky this time.
posted by ckape at 5:39 PM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]


if you come to a politics thread to quote Mencken, it just shows that you're too cynical to participate meaningfully.

Around half this country believes Jesus is probably or definitely returning in their lifetimes.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/jesus-christs-return-to-earth/

(1/3 the country is outright creationist)

You really can't have a functioning democratic system when the idiocy is so high in the populace.

This is what H L was getting on about, and what Upton Sinclair ran into in 1934.

Politicians aren't the problem, WE THE PEOPLE are the problem.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 5:40 PM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


Politicians aren't the problem, WE THE PEOPLE are the problem.

This kinda condescending attitude is exactly how leftist utopias gradually turn into dictatorships, you know.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:43 PM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


This kinda condescending attitude is exactly how leftist utopias gradually turn into dictatorships, you know.

Leftist Utopias? Like what?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:49 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


>>Politicians aren't the problem, WE THE PEOPLE are the problem.

This kinda condescending attitude is exactly how leftist utopias gradually turn into dictatorships, you know.


I don't think it's wrong though -- it's just that you can take it two ways. You either go "yes! humans are flawed, and we need a leftist dictatorship and everything will then be perfect!" or you say "hmm, if the the great sea of people aren't going to go for this broadly leftist agenda, we can accept that, work within our democracy, and make incremental leftward improvements that will accumulate into radical change over time."
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 5:50 PM on July 31, 2016 [18 favorites]


The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. -- Winston Churchill

These are just quips, but speaking from experience, too.

There are in fact a few leftist utopias on the planet, the nordic states of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

I don't have any good idea how they came to their putatively egalitarian polity and we got ours, but I do want to move there someday to check it out on the ground, or read a book on it if one exists.

Being small (5 - 10M), indigenous/homogenous populations no doubt helped.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 5:52 PM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]


(The gerrymandered House really is broken, though, and needs to be fixed. And voter suppression laws are Not Okay, and thank goodness the courts are drawing a line there, generally. But neither of those has anything to do with Sanders not being picked. I just don't want to be on the record saying there are no systematic flaws in our electioral system. Just that for all its flaws it still more or less seems to reflect the will of the people.)
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:57 PM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]


The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
For what it's worth, I just came back from having a bunch of five-minute conversations with voters, and I think that's bullshit. Also, I'm fairly certain he also said that democracy is the worst political system except all the others. And finally, Churchill is a weird person for anyone on the left to be quoting.

Our system is deeply, deeply flawed. But it's what we've got. In order to change it, we need to work within it. Even St. Bernie realizes that: he wants a political revolution, not the shooting kind, and that means changing the political system from within. Anyone who isn't willing to address current political realities is not someone who is committed to real change.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:58 PM on July 31, 2016 [29 favorites]


To chip away at creationism and fundamentalist religion, we need good public schools and libraries, safe and diverse communities, and decent employment opportunities. Sneering at the American people gets us nowhere close to the influence we need to begin to deliver them.
posted by Countess Elena at 5:59 PM on July 31, 2016 [14 favorites]


Between this, Donald Trump's trumpishness about international matters/POWs/'losing', I'm wondering if the military is going to start skewing heavily towards Clinton.

She made a very strong play for them. I personally feel "use our power to help others" is a good look for the Democratic Party, since "no war" is relatively unfeasible (right now). A shift within the military would take a lot of time, especially with how easy it is for humans to convince ourselves we're doing one thing when we're really doing another, but stories about people like Humayun Khan and how he not only protected and supported his own troops but also Iraquis around the base offer a way through the mess we've made of the Middle East.
posted by Deoridhe at 6:01 PM on July 31, 2016 [6 favorites]


indigenous/homogenous populations no doubt helped.

Using this phrase in relation to Scandinavian countries being utopias seems... well, maybe I'm reading it wrong.
posted by chris24 at 6:03 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]


I wonder if the reason that "the system is rigged" is getting so much play on both the left and the right this year is because we're so polarized these days. People who don't know any Democrats don't understand how a Democrat could possibly win a fair election. And people who don't know any Republicans, vice versa. So then they both end up believing the system is rigged..
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:04 PM on July 31, 2016 [8 favorites]


I just finished reading this entire thread and I wish I could be one of the positive people. The comparison was made that Trump is shit and Clinton is chocolate ice cream. To me it looks more like a choice between shit and shit with corn in it. At least you can pick some corn out of one of the shits and get some sustenance but the shit merchants are still just giving us normal people shit to choose from.

If you think there's any comparison between how dangerous Trump as president would be compared to Clinton then you and many of us live in totally different worlds. Congratulations on Trump not being an existential threat to you or anyone you know, I guess.
posted by winna at 6:04 PM on July 31, 2016 [49 favorites]


That assumes democracy is "working" / "implemented" properly. If 8 years of W doesn't prove that it is utterly betrayed by corporate media, nothing will. Heck, ONE reporter got sort of tough on a Trump goon and we're all like "Woooo!"

No, no, no that's not what's happening here. It's been Morning In America for 35 years. That's a kind of f*'d up democracy.

This year the Interwebs are changing things. Not always for the better but, there you go.

Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?
posted by petebest at 6:05 PM on July 31, 2016



I just finished reading this entire thread and I wish I could be one of the positive people. The comparison was made that Trump is shit and Clinton is chocolate ice cream. To me it looks more like a choice between shit and shit with corn in it.


It looks like that to you because corn is the only thing you care about. Other people are working in shit factories. Give a thought to them before you vote.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at