Stupor Snoozeday? Not exactly.
March 5, 2024 7:31 AM   Subscribe

Super Tuesday, when the greatest number of states hold primary elections, is a sleepier affair this year with Joe Biden and Donald Trump almost certain to win their respective nominations. But there are still some interesting results to look out for, namely: Can Nikki Haley win any contest outside of D.C. (and what will she do after today)? How significant will Biden's "uncommitted" protest vote be? Whither California on policing and crime -- and which two candidates will emerge from the state's blanket Senate primary? Does a new Trump protégé rise in North Carolina? And will establishment Republicans be able to derail their most problematic House candidates? More: FiveThirtyEight looks at California, Alabama / Texas, and North Carolina - Your guide to every state voting on Super Tuesday - How to watch the Super Tuesday results like a pro - States with same-day voter registration - Find your polling place
posted by Rhaomi (185 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite
 
I suspect Haley will stick in it until it is absolutely certain that Trump won’t be convicted before the election.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:38 AM on March 5 [15 favorites]


I've spent exactly one presidential election year living in a foreign country, and man was it great missing all that.

need to get back to that place again...

aside from all the tribulationist/christianist takeover or split-government gridlock (if we're lucky) in the cards next year, the term starting come January extends through the 250th anniversary of 1776, or the 50th anniversary of the Bicentennial, which it will be for me . . .
posted by torokunai at 7:54 AM on March 5 [1 favorite]


Or have a heart attack, or flee to Russia... Haley is playing the best move she's got. Hang tight and wait for the other guy to go bust. She might not have the cash to put up any serious competition but waiting it out is free.
posted by Pickman's Next Top Model at 7:54 AM on March 5 [17 favorites]


Really hoping Katie Porter makes it to the general election for Senate in California. It's going to be close, but recent polling is against her advancing.

I'm annoyed at Schiff--who was already an influential House member--running at all. Schiff's got name recognition from the impeachment trial but from a policy standpoint he's an unremarkable Democrat. I also suspect a number of people voting for the 77 year old Lee are the same people who complain about Biden being too old or the "gerontocracy." Yes, basically I'm just railing about Porter probably getting shut out; elevating her to the Senate would have been great, instead I suspect we lose her entirely.

Schiff's also been subtly trying to make Garvey look like his main rival by targeting him in ads, which is "fair" (you play to win in politics) but increases my frustration.
posted by mark k at 7:55 AM on March 5 [16 favorites]


The only thing I care about today is my local school board. We got taken over by a bunch of nut jobs in the Nov. 2022 election, and they spent 2023 passing the Mom's for Liberty playbook. We spent 2023 gathering signatures for a recall and today's the day the months and months of canvassing, calling and texting will hopefully pay off. Fingers crossed Yes wins and we throw these assholes out.
posted by Arbac at 8:23 AM on March 5 [84 favorites]


Congratulations to Nikki Haley for becoming the first woman in history to win a Republican primary!

Hillary Clinton won 36 Democratic primaries in 2016 and 23 in 2008.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:25 AM on March 5 [14 favorites]


Since basically Not Much is happening today, I'm going to just say let's have a Fantasy World rearrangement of primaries.
• Divide the states into five groups based on population
• Now divide them into ten groups, with one state from each of the population groups
• Pick groups via lottery, one through ten, for each election year
• Group 1 goes at the end of January
• Group 2 two weeks later, and so on

Now everyone gets a chance to have a chance to have a say. Having half of them all go at once on Super Tuesday is just as dumb as having the two whitest states in the nation go first.

Now I demand a pony.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:34 AM on March 5 [11 favorites]


🔮.

this has been your bombastic emoji pronouncement for the day
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:45 AM on March 5 [4 favorites]


2024 presidential campaign coverage be like:

[Car barrels down road clearly labelled "Highway to Hell"]
[Off-ramp approaches]
[Car does not take off-ramp, continues at speed on way to Hell]

REPEAT.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:47 AM on March 5 [13 favorites]


I imagine that Schiff feels that it's "his turn" as he's been in the House for 20+ years. I hate that attitude, but as that's how politics tends to run, I can't really blame him.

As a (very liberal) friend of mine put it "If you are going to vote for a uninteresting Democratic white guy, you could do a lot worse than Schiff" Knowing her, this practically qualifies as an endorsement.

The only thing I care about today is my local school board.

Oh, man. Local elections are so hard. They are the only ones where I feel that my vote seriously makes a difference (statewide I'm just making the shout for Democrats a little louder) and it's so hard to know who the nutbars are. About half my time is spent researching the school board candidates and searching for their name plus various key words to see if they are actually something that would disqualify them in my eyes.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 8:48 AM on March 5 [8 favorites]


> Schiff

lee.

and this has been your bombastic lowercase pronouncement for the day.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:54 AM on March 5 [1 favorite]


It's not a snooze here in Austin where Bari Weiss, LibsOfTikTok, and a slew of Silicon Valley billionaires are doing their best to get Republicans to vote in the Dem primary to oust our progressive DA.
posted by tofu_crouton at 8:58 AM on March 5 [13 favorites]


It’s fair I guess. I always vote in the Republican primary since that’s the most harm reduction I think I can accomplish. It’s not like NC-11 is going blue.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 9:04 AM on March 5 [4 favorites]


I thought about voting in the Republican primary just to vote against Trump, but there's a judge race I care about on the Democratic primary ballot so I will be voting for Biden I guess.
posted by joannemerriam at 9:26 AM on March 5 [4 favorites]


Unaffiliated progressive voter in NC here. Some of the Republican primary candidates are utterly monstrous. The governor's race here is especially alarming AF. So, for the first time ever in my voting life, I selected the Republican ballot. I feel like, in the primaries, voting against those MFs is the most useful thing I can do. (I have opinions, of course, about which Dems I'd like to see in the general, but ultimately most of those likely outcomes will be fine with me.) It probably won't stem the tide of impending awfulness, but I felt like I had to at least try. Who knows, maybe it'll help one or two downballot races be slightly less awful in the general...
posted by fikri at 9:30 AM on March 5 [13 favorites]


I skipped voting most of the state/presidential elections. I'm sorry, I just can't do it this year. I'm too pissed off over Gaza. I'm in CA, the corporate Dems are going to win most of the things anyway. They can win it without our household's help.

I stuck to voting on the local stuff. And then got stuck because how do I know anything about who should go on a water board committee? None of them had any websites up or anything.
posted by toastyk at 9:32 AM on March 5 [8 favorites]


I am as sectarian divisive lefty asshole as it comes and frankly I am pissed at Lee staying in that CA race despite the fact that her politics are more in line with mine and I would much rather have her in the Senate. It's not that she's "too old" - I don't think voters care about actual numerical "age" btw, they care whether someone is behaving like a deteriorating old mummy - but she doesn't seem to have any path to victory, and is only polling high enough to chip off a significant number of votes from Porter who would also be a really strong progressive asset in the Senate.
posted by windbox at 9:35 AM on March 5 [14 favorites]


As a (very liberal) friend of mine put it "If you are going to vote for a uninteresting Democratic white guy, you could do a lot worse than Schiff" Knowing her, this practically qualifies as an endorsement.

He's that brand of California Democrat (e.g. Harris, Newsom) that mostly only appears to care about the accumulation of power for its own sake and doesn't have much of a specific vision of a better America or a better system that he believes in, can articulate, and is willing to fight for.

Typical donor class blandness and blinkerism.
posted by Gadarene at 9:40 AM on March 5 [11 favorites]


I suspect Haley will stick in it until it is absolutely certain that Trump won’t be convicted before the election.

A conviction doesn’t preclude Trump from being in the election. Eugene V. Debs famously ran for President from a prison cell.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:41 AM on March 5 [3 favorites]


Slide your ballot into blue box ... like a pizza into the loving, warm oven of Democracy
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:16 AM on March 5 [1 favorite]


a slew manipulation of Silicon Valley billionaires

courtesy ChatGPT, with some coaxing
posted by torokunai at 10:22 AM on March 5 [5 favorites]


I also suspect a number of people voting for the 77 year old Lee are the same people who complain about Biden being too old or the "gerontocracy."

If we're talking about the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party (both Lee and Sanders are DSA members), then I suspect this is correct. I agree with a lot of DSA/"Bernie wing" stances, but if your favored Senate candidate was born in the same year as Donald Trump & your favorite candidate in the 2020 primaries was 14 months older than Biden, your complaints about Biden being "too old" are going to ring hollow.
posted by jonp72 at 10:25 AM on March 5 [8 favorites]


Eugene V. Debs famously ran for President from a prison cell.
Would that this desk were a time desk, and Gene Debs was running for president in 2024!
posted by heteronym at 10:25 AM on March 5 [6 favorites]


I'm going to add "feel free to vote in a Democratic primary" to my bucket list.

It's been some time since the last primary where I could skip the GOP primary and not worry about a rough beat slouching by.
posted by ocschwar at 10:31 AM on March 5


I voted in the Minnesota Democratic primary today (a.k.a. Democratic-Farmer-Labor a.k.a. DFL) & the only content on the ballot was the presidential primary, for which I voted "uncommitted." Even if you are disgusted about Gaza, so disgusted that you won't vote for Biden in November, I still highly recommend voting "uncommitted" in your state's Democratic primary, because this may the best opportunity for your vote to "send a message" in your lifetime.

Voting is a very inefficient way of sending a message & I would prefer that most people who want to send a message would do so through protesting instead, because the message is a hell of a lot clearer that way. Heck, for most of the time, I believe doing an interpretive dance is a clearer way of sending a message than trying to "send" that message via your vote. But this is different, because there is already a protest movement in place that indicates that "uncommitted" means you support a ceasefire or at least a reduction of loss of life in Palestine. If you vote for a specific non-Biden candidate, that message is entirely muddled (e.g., did you vote Williamson because you're anti-vaxx or pro-Palestine?). But if you vote "uncommitted," you're just basically voting "not Biden" or "not Biden yet," without getting your message mixed up with messaging of some other candidate.

And abstaining never "sends a message." The political class just interprets non-participation as satisfaction with the status quo. I knew an anarchist who would vote in every election, but he expressed his disgust with the system by sending in a blank ballot every time. I respect that a lot more than just staying at home. How else will they distinguish you from all the people who stayed home because they were apathetic?
posted by jonp72 at 10:41 AM on March 5 [30 favorites]


Reminder there are good resources out there to inform yourself. Ballotopedia is incomplete, but the most complete I know of. Please post more resources.
posted by rubatan at 10:42 AM on March 5 [7 favorites]


Thank you, jonp72, that was really helpful and has altered how I'm voting!
posted by joannemerriam at 10:44 AM on March 5 [5 favorites]


Another crucial bit of info is that Associated Press has numerical standards for when they call Biden or Trump the presumptive nominee. Even if Biden wins every delegate on Super Tuesday, the earliest he can mathematically meet the AP's standards for getting labeled the "presumptive nominee" is two weeks from now on March 19. So if you are lucky enough to be in a state with a Democratic primary between March 5 and March 19, you have a tremendous opportunity for leverage within the Democratic Party by voting "uncommitted," which your counterparts in other states might not have.
posted by jonp72 at 10:46 AM on March 5 [7 favorites]


I agree with a lot of DSA/"Bernie wing" stances, but if your favored Senate candidate was born in the same year as Donald Trump & your favorite candidate in the 2020 primaries was 14 months older than Biden, your complaints about Biden being "too old" are going to ring hollow.


No. The majority of voters do not actually care about anyone's numerical age when it comes to pulling the lever. When they say someone is "too old" it means [this specific person] is clearly "too old" [for the job, given their behavior]. It means "I am witnessing with my eyes this person basically fucking deteriorating on screen whenever they make a public appearance and I feel like I'm going insane watching people try to tell me they are fine. They look, sound, and act like they desperately need to go lay down somewhere." If they were 65 and behaving like a visually unhealthy person in this manner they would still be "too old".

Lee - and Sanders, for that matter - are not "too old" for a massive index of young progressive voters because clearly they seem to be handling speeches, questions, and interviews cogently enough that it does not obscure the moral clarity that they see in their messaging. I am speaking as a progressive who would like to see Lee drop out; nothing to do with being too old.
posted by windbox at 10:56 AM on March 5 [13 favorites]


I also suspect a number of people voting for the 77 year old Lee are the same people who complain about Biden being too old or the "gerontocracy.


Do you have anyone specific or is this just a scenario thats, shall we say, made up?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:57 AM on March 5 [8 favorites]


And abstaining never "sends a message." The political class just interprets non-participation as satisfaction with the status quo.

It's also important to remember that the candidate with the most votes wins, period end of statement, especially for the general election. From a mathematical perspective, abstaining simply means the other guy, whether Trump or Schiff or whoever, only needs 1 vote to counteract the abstention (your non-vote is outweighed by the 1 vote) whereas if you do hold your nose and vote for the lesser of evil candidates, then the "even worse candidate" needs 2 votes to outweigh your one. Voting 3rd party messes with this math but still leaves the "even worse candidate" closer to the win.
posted by beaning at 10:58 AM on March 5 [12 favorites]


I seldom have second thoughts about voting in a primary, but this year I really wish I'd voted for Haley. (They have early voting, how come they can't have do-over voting?)
posted by mittens at 11:02 AM on March 5 [2 favorites]


It's also important to remember that the candidate with the most votes wins, period end of statement, especially for the general election.

omg I wish this were true
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:08 AM on March 5 [26 favorites]


I'm involved in a local race here in SF that's one of the ones getting national attention. I'm so deeply sad and demoralized about the rightward swing of politics here. The initiative I'm fighting has over $1.5M in spending for it - probably over $2M by the time the final filing is done - and we're a bunch of scrappy non-profits and volunteers with I think $60K raised to try to fight it. All the actual experts are on our side - Prop F will increase homelessness in SF for sure, likely increase drug overdoses, is proposing failed, discredited approaches - but it polled well for the Mayor and so she tossed it on the ballot. It's so cynical and just playing with people's lives for political gain. This and the police surveillance one both. That they are attracting national attention as a sign of something is just more discouraging.

In conclusion, SF voters please vote no on Prop F. And Prop E.
posted by gingerbeer at 11:16 AM on March 5 [16 favorites]


It's also important to remember that the candidate with the most votes wins, period end of statement, especially for the general election.

omg I wish this were true


I understand the frustration with the Electoral College and the far-right's efforts to impede the process but overall, your issue seems to be with the Electoral College, not voting per se. So (1) the majority does decide the electoral vote and efforts to override this are heavily fought against (2) Voting is known to counteract gerrymandering which often is heavily dependent on slim margins. (3) There are also many state-wide or local elections where the majority vote carries without further process.
posted by beaning at 11:19 AM on March 5 [5 favorites]


Ok but yes, because of the electoral college, your statement is incorrect for President. Didn't know you were speaking about other races since you mentioned Trump in that paragraph. 🤔

The majority vote wins would be fucking great but that's not our system.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:33 AM on March 5 [4 favorites]


Voted for Biden this morning.

I sure hope I voted hard enough to make up for the past three years of missed opportunities to hold Trump accountable and harden our Democracy against authoritarianism.

I hope I voted hard enough to make up for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema blocking any attempt at passing voting rights legislation.

And I hope I voted hard enough to make up for Biden's refusal to pack the Court.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:40 AM on March 5 [19 favorites]


Ok but yes, because of the electoral college, your statement is incorrect for President. Didn't know you were speaking about other races since you mentioned Trump in that paragraph. 🤔

The majority vote wins would be fucking great but that's not our system.


I also mention Schiff in the same clause as Trump and do not mention any specific candidate in the remaining.

Bush v Gore and Trump v Clinton are the only 2 presidential elections where the candidate with the majority vote nationwide did not win. In Biden vs Trump, Biden only won because voters in Georgia and Nevada and other states stood in line for hours, believing their vote mattered despite messaging otherwise..and it did. In other states, voting for the "not as bad candidate" led to state level officials who held the line as the far right tried to to override them.

Voting matters. The electoral college needs fixed. I think overall we are in agreement.
posted by beaning at 11:47 AM on March 5 [14 favorites]


Ask a Trumper if an 81 year-old should be disqualified for president as too old. (They will say yes.)

Then ask if, should Trump win, we should get rid of term limits so that the non 77 year-old can serve as president again four years from now. (They will say yes.)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:51 AM on March 5 [7 favorites]


*now, not non
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:01 PM on March 5


RonButNotStupid: "I hope I voted hard enough to make up for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema blocking any attempt at passing voting rights legislation."

Maybe not enough to make up for it, but apparently enough to convince Sinema to fuck off to some lobbying shop instead of running for reelection. Thank you for your service!
posted by Rhaomi at 12:13 PM on March 5 [16 favorites]


Holy shit.

Between Manchin's earlier announcement that he wasn't going to run as a third-party candidate and now Sinema's announcement...

Maybe these people actually do understand how important the election is?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:16 PM on March 5 [7 favorites]


My favorite Sinema reaction so far: "Kyrsten Sinema was the perfect Gen X representation because she abandoned all principles by her 35th birthday and dressed like Daria to assuage any guilt about it"
posted by mittens at 12:22 PM on March 5 [34 favorites]


How many of you have Uncommitted as an option in your state’s primary? Mine doesn’t (Ohio).
posted by girlmightlive at 12:46 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]


My favorite Sinema reaction so far: "Kyrsten Sinema was the perfect Gen X representation because she abandoned all principles by her 35th birthday and dressed like Daria to assuage any guilt about it"

"Evil Lisa Loeb" was another good one.
posted by jonp72 at 12:56 PM on March 5 [23 favorites]


It's also important to remember that the candidate with the most votes wins...

The person you were responding to was specifically talking about voting Uncommitted in the primary election today instead of declining to vote on the Democratic presidential primary ballot, so there's no other candidate involved.
posted by joannemerriam at 12:57 PM on March 5 [1 favorite]


girlmightlive, Tennessee had it.
posted by joannemerriam at 12:57 PM on March 5


How many of you have Uncommitted as an option in your state’s primary? Mine doesn’t (Ohio).

I know Colorado, Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, and Tennessee for sure.
posted by tofu_crouton at 1:00 PM on March 5


He's that brand of California Democrat (e.g. Harris, Newsom) that mostly only appears to care about the accumulation of power for its own sake and doesn't have much of a specific vision of a better America or a better system that he believes in, can articulate, and is willing to fight for.

Your median Dem pol, in other words.
posted by kensington314 at 1:01 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]


An option to cast a protest vote against President Biden and his response to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza is on the ballot in at least seven Super Tuesday states. [...] The specific ballot language for the uncommitted vote varies: Minnesota voters have the "uncommitted" vote option on their primary ballots, Colorado has a "non-committed delegate" option, while Massachusetts and North Carolina have a "no preference" option. (Which Super Tuesday states have "uncommitted" on the ballot? The protest voting option against Biden is spreading - CBS News)
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:04 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]


It means "I am witnessing with my eyes this person basically fucking deteriorating on screen whenever they make a public appearance and I feel like I'm going insane watching people try to tell me they are fine. They look, sound, and act like they desperately need to go lay down somewhere." If they were 65 and behaving like a visually unhealthy person in this manner they would still be "too old".

Lee - and Sanders, for that matter - are not "too old" for a massive index of young progressive voters because clearly they seem to be handling speeches, questions, and interviews cogently enough that it does not obscure the moral clarity that they see in their messaging. I am speaking as a progressive who would like to see Lee drop out; nothing to do with being too old.


I don't think you have empirical support for the idea that voters don't really care about age. That's just wishcasting by the Bernie wing to avoid having egg on their face for supporting a candidate in 2020 who made Biden look young by comparison. Even if I stipulate that Bernie voters made the right moral choice in the 2020 primary, you can't change those optics.

Frankly, I don't see the deterioration you think you see in Biden. To be frank, if you're making a carveout for Lee and Sanders on ideological grounds, the disparagement of Biden here just comes off as ableist and ageist. Biden was always a gaffe machine when he was younger & if he lacks your desired level of "cogency" in public appearances, he does have a very well-documented history of suppressing a stutter, which explains the gaffes.

Besides, the presumptive Republican nominee is Donald Trump. The age gap between Biden and Trump is only 3 and a half years! If we were living in an alternative universe where Biden were running against a generic 50-year-old Republican, the age argument might hold some water, but in this universe, where Trump has frequently said he's running against "Obama" not Biden on the stump, the "Biden is too old" discourse is just way counterproductive right now.
posted by jonp72 at 1:10 PM on March 5 [23 favorites]


jonp72, why are you so unnecessarily fighty with progressives? You come out swinging in a thread where nobody was fighting. Please stop.
posted by flamk at 1:15 PM on March 5 [4 favorites]


But her emails his age!
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:16 PM on March 5 [15 favorites]


Is jonp72 being fighty in this thread? I don't see it.
posted by kensington314 at 1:41 PM on March 5 [28 favorites]


"Kyrsten Sinema was the perfect Gen X representation because she abandoned all principles by her 35th birthday and dressed like Daria to assuage any guilt about it"
Daria never dressed like Sinema! And Daria was technically a millennial. Fictional characters deserve better than comparison to Sinema.
posted by heteronym at 1:52 PM on March 5 [11 favorites]


I voted for Nikki Haley; because if I can vote against Trump I’m voting against Trump,
posted by interogative mood at 1:54 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]


Ok, so in CA... State Measure 1 looks good, but criticism says it will pull funding from LGBTQ+ mental health spaces. So I can't vote "Yes" on it.

Gotta go in person because I can't find my ballot.
posted by luckynerd at 1:57 PM on March 5 [1 favorite]


> Ok, so in CA... State Measure 1 looks good, but criticism says it will pull funding from LGBTQ+ mental health spaces. So I can't vote "Yes" on it.

copy-pasted from a californian friend. i don't know all that much about this measure, but this take seems sound-ish:
California- so we all know to vote NO on 1 right?
It’s a criminalization of homelessness bill that gives the state expanded rights to involuntary treatment in locked facilities. Most of the budget comes from defunding existing programs, and the added money is to build these involuntary containment centers.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 2:05 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]


State Measure 1 looks good, but criticism says it will pull funding from LGBTQ+ mental health spaces. So I can't vote "Yes" on it.

Is that legitimate criticism, or “criticism” designed to split allies?
posted by Thorzdad at 2:07 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]


Common Dreams, Feb. 29, on the Listen to Michigan campaign's impact on Feb. 27: Over 100,000 Michigan voters cast primary ballots letting U.S. President Joe Biden know they are "uncommitted" to supporting him in the general election due to his continued support for Israel's genocidal violence in Gaza [...] the campaign drew more than 10 times the amount of support it expected, with more than 13% of Michigan Democrats who took part in Tuesday's primary voting "uncommitted."

posted by Iris Gambol at 2:09 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]




A conviction doesn’t preclude Trump from being in the election. Eugene V. Debs famously ran for President from a prison cell.

Technically it could happen, realistically I doubt it. On the other hand I would have said the same thing about Trump being elected the first time.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:29 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]


Eagerly awaiting election results for my county in TN because 4 hours from polls closing, my precinct had 100% of votes for uncommitted in the democratic primary. (Mine was the sole ballot.)
posted by joeyh at 2:31 PM on March 5 [7 favorites]


In 2012 11% of Democratic primary voters voted for uncommitted and Obama was running unopposed. Biden's results in the Michigan primary are probably not as significant as the horse race reporting would indicate.
posted by interogative mood at 2:35 PM on March 5 [10 favorites]


Just filled out my Super Tuesday ballot. That was the easiest set of measures and candidates I've seen in 20+ years of voting. Hoping Porter can beat out that Garvey lunkhead in our jungle primary, highly unlikely tho.
posted by torokunai at 2:36 PM on March 5 [4 favorites]


CA Prop 1 -- I'm voting no on it. In addition to the League of Women Voters position posted above, here's some additional info from Disability Rights CA:

https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/latest-news/disability-rights-california-opposes-proposition-1

The LGBTQ mental health focus is weird, as it would take money from a variety of programs, not just LGBTQ ones, and put money into other things, namely housing, that would benefit LGBTQ people too. So I don't know that that's a great metric for the impact of it? But yes, among other things it takes money from existing mental health services and puts it into housing. Which, we definitely need the housing, but it should never be a choice between mental health and housing funds.
posted by gingerbeer at 2:48 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]


Since he was still on my ballot and AFAIK was specifically running to spite Trump, I voted for Christie.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 2:58 PM on March 5 [6 favorites]


The housing built by Prop 1 would be housing for people with mental health difficulties, so it's not like the money is being taken from mental health care and turned into McMansions. I'm not sure what the checks are to make sure that the housing money is spent the way it's intended to be spent (always a concern) or if this is a better use of the money than the one to which it is currently put (beats me).
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 3:35 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]


jonp72, why are you so unnecessarily fighty with progressives? You come out swinging in a thread where nobody was fighting. Please stop.

I just posted with an argument encouraging Democrats to vote Uncommitted in their state primaries. I support a ceasefire in Gaza, but I'm not going hand the general election to Donald Trump over it.

If that's not progressive enough for you, I don't know what to tell you.
posted by jonp72 at 3:37 PM on March 5 [19 favorites]


Voted "No Preference" in North Carolina, our version of Uncommitted. Otherwise, not a very interesting primary in my district.
posted by coffeecat at 3:50 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]


I suspect Haley will stick in it until it is absolutely certain that Trump won’t be convicted before the election.

I doubt it -there is no reason for her to do this - she doesn't automatically become the nominee if he gets convicted (assuming he gets the majority of delegates), the party would decide at the convention and they could still hand it over to DeSantis, etc. And now that the Koch money has dried up, I bet she drops out soon.
posted by coffeecat at 4:02 PM on March 5 [1 favorite]


Bush v Gore and Trump v Clinton are the only 2 presidential elections where the candidate with the majority vote nationwide did not win.

And Hayes v Tilden in 1876, a particularly nasty election.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:59 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]




nikodym: ""Frankly, I don't see the deterioration you think you see in Biden.""

...making a joke about not doing Q+A and then sitting quietly while several reporters shout questions over each other? SCANDAL.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:17 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]


Well, that’s one heck of a brainless MAGA 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 source right there. Thanks for that, nikodym, it really helps me calibrate how many grains of salt to apply to your “contributions”.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 6:21 PM on March 5 [10 favorites]


You're shooting the messenger I think. I don't follow that particular account on Twitter, but clips like this get widely shared. And if you can look at that video and not recognise that Biden's age is a legitimate issue when it comes to running for another four year term, I think you're in denial.
posted by nikodym at 6:39 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]


You’re parroting accounts that are busy posting shit like this.

I’m not about to shoot any messenger, but I have no clue how you expect anyone to take you seriously when you’re amplifying far right conspiracy theorists.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 6:45 PM on March 5 [13 favorites]


I have work in the morning so I have to go to sleep and I would just be so, so happy if when I wake up it turns out Haley won Vermont.
posted by Tomorrowful at 7:03 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]


I am not amplifying that account; I said I don't follow them and didn't bother to even look at who they are and what else they've posted, because it's a straight-up video clip and the footage speaks for itself. I am sharing it because it is circulating beyond MAGA twitter, which is how I found it. Whatever else that account has posted is besides the point: the guy is clearly deteriorating in front of all of us, and to pretend that this is something only a far right conspiracy theorist could possibly notice is simple gaslighting.
posted by nikodym at 7:06 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]


Oh, ok. Odd that you say it’s circulating beyond MAGA Twitter but you posted a MAGA Twitter link to it, but you do you, I guess? All I’m saying is that you directly linking a QAnon nut job to “prove” your point really isn’t coming across the way you think it is.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 7:11 PM on March 5 [7 favorites]


nikodym: "I am not amplifying that account; I said I don't follow them and didn't bother to even look at who they are and what else they've posted, because it's a straight-up video clip and the footage speaks for itself. I am sharing it because it is circulating beyond MAGA twitter, which is how I found it. Whatever else that account has posted is besides the point: the guy is clearly deteriorating in front of all of us, and to pretend that this is something only a far right conspiracy theorist could possibly think is simple gaslighting."

"I don't follow this far-right conspiracy account, I merely saw it circulating on the far-right conspiracy platform" is not the defense you think it is.

In other news, Biden has suffered a shock loss in American Samoa to dark horse businessman Jason "14-Minute-Old Wikipedia Article" Palmer by 51-40. Not 51%-40%, but 51 to 40 votes. (Reminder that American Samoa voted for Bloomberg in 2020, the only contest he won).
posted by Rhaomi at 7:12 PM on March 5 [15 favorites]


Odd that you say it’s circulating beyond MAGA Twitter but you posted a MAGA Twitter link to it, but you do you, I guess? All I’m saying is that you directly linking a QAnon nut job to “prove” your point really isn’t coming across the way you think it is.

So the way twitter works is that people can retweet posts, and you can click through to the original post, which is what I did when a leftist that I follow shared it. I didn't care who originally posted it, because unless the implication is that they doctored the clip, it makes no difference to what we can all see. A mumbling man with a vacant stare who doesn't look like he's going to make it to November, let alone 2028. You can either engage with the substance under discussion or try to deflect, change the subject and gaslight that no, he looks as fine as lucid as he did eight years ago, stop spreading MAGA lies.
posted by nikodym at 7:17 PM on March 5


If that's not progressive enough for you, I don't know what to tell you.

My comment wasn’t whether or not you’re progressive enough (this seems to be a common way to mischaracterize folks who disagree with the mainstream of the Democratic Party as was seen in the recent Ezra Klein thread). It was about how you seem to enter political threads, from my perspective, in a fighty way.

I don't think you have empirical support for the idea that voters don't really care about age. That's just wishcasting by the Bernie wing to avoid having egg on their face for supporting a candidate in 2020 who made Biden look young by comparison. Even if I stipulate that Bernie voters made the right moral choice in the 2020 primary, you can't change those optics.

This is what I mean. Why are you working so hard to marginalize Bernie supporters in a thread that has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders (this is what I mean by fighty)? The commenter was clearly pushing back on the idea that people who are concerned about Biden are ageist when what they really are are folks who are concerned with what appears to many many people as a clear decline in Biden’s mental and physical functioning (he literally shuffles to the podium now!) even from just a year or two ago.

You just dismiss out of hand this original commenter’s point as if it’s self evidently obvious they’re lying and full of self-serving bullshit.

Again, I know you try and appear very reasonable and fair in these threads but the appearance of being so isn’t fooling me.
posted by flamk at 7:23 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]


Hey, can we call a reset on the personal attacks in this thread? We're getting pretty far afield here.
posted by schmod at 7:46 PM on March 5 [17 favorites]


Seconded. The Klein thread went to hell in a handbasket for precisely that reason, we don't need to do that with every election-themed thread.
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:54 PM on March 5 [6 favorites]


In Austin, our openly socialist DA who specializes in prosecuting wage theft and police abuses of power has won with a landslide against a candidate endorsed by Silicon Valley billionaires. We have had international newspapers hanging out at voting locations to cover the election, so I am glad we can show the world a good result.
posted by tofu_crouton at 7:56 PM on March 5 [40 favorites]


Maybe it’s because I was never a big tweeter or whatever , but since the Elon era I treat Twitter links like stormfront or Truth social links. I don’t think they belong on Metafilter given that they are probably 90% doctored or disinformation. The only RL friend I have who’s still on there says NATO made Russia invade Ukraine , and that Chinese people love their system because it’s a “bottom up dictatorship “. I agree Biden is slipping but I wanna see that clip on the BBC with context or GTFO.
posted by caviar2d2 at 8:04 PM on March 5 [15 favorites]


Well my vote moved my county's result +3 percentage points for uncommitted, which makes it the highest percentage statewide at 18.8%.
posted by joeyh at 8:17 PM on March 5 [6 favorites]


One of the truly bizarre things about primaries is that a lot of ink is going to be spilled over the fact that Haley won in Vermont - a state she has no chance of winning in November.

Good for her, I guess (and bad for Trump, which is always good), but does it actually mean anything that she won in a state where Republicans are less popular than venereal disease?
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 8:22 PM on March 5 [6 favorites]


I mean, it’s kind of funny.
posted by hototogisu at 8:29 PM on March 5 [2 favorites]


... it's a straight-up video clip and the footage speaks for itself.

That was never ever the case, and it's becoming less the case every year. I think footage can be very different from what people in the room perceived, and any sort of recording is just a simulacrum. Accounts of people who were actually there are much more important than some synthetic eye that can be easily manipulated. Even original video can be misleading, like the Dean Scream, where a directional microphone grossly distorted the sounds people heard.

Just slowing a video slightly makes a big difference. Today we have completely simulated AI videos. There is exactly zero reason to trust random video clips ever. Unless it's from some official source it's complete trash. This whole year will be will be lie after lie, all designed to fit into the overarching narratives.

The White House has only shared this transcript where this moment is at the end of the remarks. I think this is a mistake because not providing an official source, no matter how damming, leaves the field open for any sort of manipulation while denying people on the side of truth any way to refute it. Credible news sources have similar video as the tweet. I think the directional microphone is part of this, since there's a lot of noise in the room he's pausing for. If there were an official White House video, it could have a microphone and mixing setup that better conveys what people heard in the room, yet still be objective because it isn't sound-edited.

Still, this is a big problem. I didn't get involved in the knife-fight on the other thread, but clearly people are upset. First on policy, which can and should be corrected, though obviously many are permanently lost. The second is perception. Biden just needs to find another gear to fix this. Trump wears clown makeup, and stands weirdly, and who knows what drugs he's on, all to maintain his persona. Biden needs to do like 10% of that: find makeup artists who take him back to his 2020 look. It's totally possible and plausible, he just needs to get a lot less comfortable in his own skin. Find performance coaches who shake him out of routines like staring down at books with his eyes half-closed as if he's asleep, or his awkward walk or slow arm movements when he speaks. I've heard he has back arthritis, which sounds like a horrible ordeal, but still he has to get moving just a little bit more. Find a doctor that gives him just a touch of whatever drugs Trump is on. It's theater, it's cosmetic, but if Biden really thinks he's the guy he needs to pep up his step and stop looking like a dottering 80-year-old.
posted by netowl at 8:39 PM on March 5 [13 favorites]


Hey now, our governor (Phil Scott) is a Republican and is the fourth most popular governor in America. And I do hope that Haley winning Vermont gets a disproportionate level of press, although the story should include that we have open primaries and the only contest where party ballot mattered was the presidential. I know of multiple people who held their noses and asked for a Republican ballot specifically to vote against Trump.
posted by meinvt at 8:40 PM on March 5 [4 favorites]


Fellow Americans, quietly, between us... I hope your talk of getting the fuck out of this country is moving from abstract expression of discontent to concrete planning. The best we can manage is a plan that gets us out of here in five or so years. But it is a plan. It's not a riff or a joke.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:57 PM on March 5 [4 favorites]


I hate Elon as much as anyone, but to say that Twitter is the equivalent of stormfront or Truth social is to erase a huge number of activist, leftist, minority and Global South voices that continue to use the platform to share information despite him. Yes there is a lot of fake news being shared there as well, but it's extremely quaint to expect 100% of all valid media to be curated through the likes of the BBC and certainly this will not be the attitude of the voters that wil decide the coming election. I've seen this clip shared now by other accounts which might not have provoked the same type of ad hominem reaction, and honestly there are various other clips out there that demonstrate why a majority of Biden 2000 voters now, when polled, say that they believe he's too old to run. Of course you can never tell nowadays if a clip might be doctored but one of the problems with running Biden is the absence of recent clips that show him looking and sounding anything like he used to. It's not a cosmetic problem that can be fixed with another facelift or an injection of uppers. If voters wouldn't trust a guy to drive their car good luck convincing them to trust him driving the free world.
posted by nikodym at 8:58 PM on March 5 [9 favorites]


It seems like a pretty big deal that Uncommitted/No Preference is at almost 20% in Minnesota! The numbers from various states over at Axios.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:01 PM on March 5 [12 favorites]


And abstaining never "sends a message." The political class just interprets non-participation as satisfaction with the status quo.
posted by jonp72


Not even that. What they take from it is that they don't need to pay any attention to you. And they are correct.

Abstaining is not the righteous policy pressure tactic some think it is. It just gets you ignored.
posted by Pouteria at 9:24 PM on March 5 [12 favorites]


Metafilter: I mean, it's kind of funny.
posted by dannyboybell at 9:28 PM on March 5 [3 favorites]


It appears Porter missed her shot at the general election in the Senate by quite a bit, damnit. Fewer than half the votes for Schiff.

She had plenty of money so that wasn't the problem. Guess it's just a reminder of how far my preferences are from the mainstream, even in "liberal California."
posted by mark k at 9:50 PM on March 5 [10 favorites]


It seems like a pretty big deal that Uncommitted/No Preference is at almost 20% in Minnesota!

I've seen Reuters and NYT filing the story but between the two I'm going with Reuters:'Uncommitted' protest over Gaza again raises questions for Biden

Please mark this news angle as a yellow alert for your low-info voters.
posted by cendawanita at 10:00 PM on March 5 [5 favorites]


The Minnesota news made up my mind which thread this should go: (HuffPo) How Michigan Organizers Got 100,000 ‘Uncommitted’ Votes - Michigan organizers got 100,000 people to vote “uncommitted” and send a message to President Joe Biden about his policy in Gaza. Their effort likely won’t be the last.

Worth thinking about how on-short-notice the mobilization effort started and the gains collected so far. Just from a political comms perspective that tells you a lot about unactivated voters on this issue that was there to be picked up.
posted by cendawanita at 10:03 PM on March 5 [8 favorites]




Trump Is Winning This Election Right Now. Here’s Why.

The thing is, RAPIST DONALD TRUMP is a RAPIST. Say whatever you want about Joe Biden, he hasn't had 2 juries look at him, and say, "He's a rapist and a liar and is liable for $100 Million in damages to his victim. "

In a better world, RAPIST DONALD TRUMP wouldn't even get in the door at the GOP convention. But apparently there's people out there who feel that that someone being a rapist liar isn't a showstopper.

In which RAPIST DONALD TRUMP's loser lawyer Alina Habba begs the court to not make him pay his debts.

How's it going to play out when E. Jean Carroll's attorney Robbie Kaplan sends the Sheriffs over to padlock RAPIST DONALD TRUMP's "30,000 square foot" triplex penthouse in RAPIST DONALD TRUMP's namesake tower and auction it off? Will they go after the $30 million that Mar-a-Lago is worth?
posted by mikelieman at 11:32 PM on March 5 [7 favorites]


FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK.

All three of my candidates in San Benito County appear to have lost. That's it for Democratic control of San Benito County for the next four years. And I'm feeling dismal about the Garvey/Schiff matchup. The Overton window in California appears to be moving sharply to the middle/right.
Hearing a lot of talk IRL about how it's dismal for San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland- expect a lot of city councils to be moving right in November.
The progressives stayed home, now it's neoliberals that will be running the CDP (even moreso than before). Y'all just uncommitted yourselves out of the central committees.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 12:44 AM on March 6 [10 favorites]


I believe you about the shift to the middle/right. I am not convinced about the central committee stuff but you probably know better than I. In California, we were asked to skip voting for a Democratic presidential candidate in order to protest Biden's support of Israel. So I voted for other folks but not for president. I haven't seen any reports on it, and I don't know if that is even tracked. But I hope so. I really, really, really want Biden to come to his senses about Israel before I am forced to vote for him in November.
posted by Bella Donna at 3:58 AM on March 6


A couple of notes on Minnesota:

Minnesota only held its first presidential primary in 2020. Delegate selection was done through the caucus system before that. And, 2020 was a contested race with no incumbent on the DFL (Democratic) side. Apples-to-apples comparisons are difficult.

This years results:

Biden 171k votes, 71%
Uncommitted 45k votes, 19%

The rest went to Dean Phillips and miscellaneous candidates.

The 2020 results:

Biden 287k votes, 39%
Sanders 222k votes, 30%
Warren 115k votes, 15%

Mike Bloomberg (remember him?) got 8%.

In 2016, caucus-goers could participate in a nonbinding "vote" for their preferred candidate. (That year's caucuses were jammed with people, which generated lots of complaints and led to the move to the primary elections.) Results from 2016:

Sanders 126k, 62%
Clinton 78k, 38%


In 2012, uncommitted got about 4% and Obama as incumbent got the rest.

In 2008, Minnesota delegates were 2/3 Obama and 1/3 Clinton.

So, you can see where Minnesota has supported candidates who are a bit more to the left in recent cycles--Bernie has been more popular in the DFL than either Biden or Clinton. A moderately strong 'uncommitted' vote isn't surprising in that context.

Does it mean anything for the general election? Very limited polling so far has Biden leading Minnesota around 3% to 4%. If this holds, it would track with 2016, when Clinton won Minnesota by roughly the same margin. Clinton's winning margin in votes in 2016 was about 45k.

Now a lot of those 45k uncommitted votes in the 2024 primary will 'come home' to the endorsed candidate in November. The overall race is still closer than it should be in an ideal world, but based on what we know today, Minnesota should still be okay in November, I don't expect Trump to get electoral votes here. But, the uncommitted movement probably has made people sit up a little and take notice.
posted by gimonca at 4:12 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]


Are there many reasons for the many uncommitted votes and that's why we're calling it uncommitted? Or is it 90+%, "I'm not acting to benefit someone assisting a genocide" and we're going to frame it "uncommitted" forever because that feels less bad?

Maybe I missed another major issue that causing Democrats to stay home ill.
posted by Slackermagee at 4:19 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]


Why are Trumps margins so much closer than Biden’s? Feel like this hasn’t been mentioned hardly at all in the reporting.
posted by girlmightlive at 4:55 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]


dark horse businessman Jason "14-Minute-Old Wikipedia Article" Palmer

they made the blinking white guy meme into a candidate?
posted by mittens at 5:04 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]


Why are Trumps margins so much closer than Biden’s?

Trump is very unpopular and lots of people who habitually vote in Republican primaries don't like him.

Feel like this hasn’t been mentioned hardly at all in the reporting.

The elite, journalism-trend-setting press is deeply in the tank for Trump. There was a point during the Michigan primary night where CNN's page had something like "Biden in trouble with only 85% of the vote" and "Trump storms to easy victory with almost 70% of vote" at the same fucking time. Trump is always confident, dominating, winning; Biden doing better than Trump is always in trouble, weak, Democrats in disarray. The Times especially has been truly terrible.

The CNN-page's headlines were much more neutral last night, saying both of them won easily. Still.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:22 AM on March 6 [21 favorites]


Why are Trumps margins so much closer than Biden’s? Feel like this hasn’t been mentioned hardly at all in the reporting.

As in Haley and/or others have (combined) been racking up 25-40% in the Republican primaries?

There's clearly still a chunk of voters who consider themselves "Republican" or Republican-leaning independents who want a candidate that isn't batshit, who would prefer the Reagan-style method of advancing the conservative agenda under a veneer of civility and with a certain level of pragmatism, and who are afraid that Trump's increasing batshittery (and let's be honest, likely increasing dementia) will cause the Republicans to lose badly. Plus maybe, depending on the state, some number of true independents or Democrats who hit the Republican primaries just to increase the anti-Trump vote.

It's not being widely reported because horse race coverage is better for clicks and eyeballs and money.

Although it's not hard to find reporting from more politically-focused places like Politico or The Hill or Axios that there's a certain level of freaking out about these results behind the scenes in the Republican camp. Because from the entrance/exit polls, there's a chunk of Haley voters who swear they will never vote Trump, and her strongest results (where she often handily won these demographics) have been the college educated, the suburbs, and cities. If Trump can't swing a bunch of white college graduate suburbanites back into the Republican fold, he's likely toast.
posted by soundguy99 at 5:38 AM on March 6 [5 favorites]


Trump’s Extremism Isn’t a Footnote—It’s the Story (Parker Molloy for Dame)
posted by box at 5:44 AM on March 6 [5 favorites]


In Colorado, uncommitted votes have nothing to do with the make-up of county and state Democratic Party leadership. Our primary ballot had one race: presidential primary (where uncommitted votes are at 8%).

Everything else, including party leadership, is decided through a process that starts in a grossly unrepresentative and inequitable caucus process this Saturday, which I'll nevertheless drag myself to and participate in.

I might even find myself elected a precinct person if this year is anything like past years' turnout, though that position would likely only last for the next three meetings of the Adams County Dems that I'm not able to attend because the central committee refuses to offer virtual attendance or shift around meeting spaces. Instead, inexplicably, they insist on meeting in a union hall whose leadership are strong supporters of a local Koch-funded strong-arm mayor.

Meanwhile, those who voice policy disagreements on the county Party's Facebook page are accused of being Putin dupes or agents.

One reason I need to attend my caucus and county assembly is to support my state house representative. She was appointed through a vacancy process (the state legistlative caucus has had an unsettling level of turnover due to a toxic environment in the General Assembly); this vacancy process, run by the state Democratic Party, left our seat vacant for nearly two weeks. And now, after they deigned to appoint someone, that position isn't safe: it can be, and is being, challenged through the caucus/assembly process.

Despite that exhausting and demoralizing environment, I will be attending caucus and the county assembly, both to support candidates and see if anyone might be interested in a conversation: how can we build more a respectful, engaging, and resilient coalition to see us through the dark times ahead?
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:45 AM on March 6 [6 favorites]


I want to semi-apologize for my comment above about Twitter and Twitter users. Obviously there are people still finding value there and I didn't mean to imply anything negative about those people. I do still question a platform that actively courts disinformation and whose owner is unhinged, authoritarian, and actively involved in the direction of the platform. My *personal* experience as a progressive/leftist/whatever has been that my friends that have stayed on the platform frequently send me Russian and Chinese propaganda, unsubstantiated "JAQing off" stuff about the Nordstream pipeline, CIA this and that, and (in one case) a similar "Biden spacing out" video. They never want to talk about practical stuff like what Mitch McConnell retiring might portend.

I think we've established here and in the country (polling) that almost EVERYONE thinks Biden is too old to be President, and that lots of people including me find current U.S. Gaza policy abhorrent (I didn't say "Biden's Gaza policy" because the reality is that the flawed US Israel policy has been more or less a constant and was somehow even worse under Trump).

So as we go through this season let's remember that we on Metafilter are mostly agreed that Trump needs to be stopped along with his state and federal proxies, and have some empathy for people struggling with the best option. My family in NC cast 3 votes for "No Preference" due to Gaza policy - overall we delivered a 12.7% No Preference. We are still absolutely voting Biden in the fall due to the alternative, though we may have a tough time getting excited about it depending on the overall landscape. I personally hope Biden pulls it off in November and then hands the reins to Harris, who I think can do a solid job in office but who would probably lose against Trump.

Other NC results matched my choices. I really suggest that folks using Vote Save America (or otherwise spreading money and time around) spend effort on NC. It was purple for a long time and has been gaining, um, "carpetbaggers" who tend to be wealthier northeasterners but are at least more blue on average. I really think we can add NC to the D pile. The R gubernational candidate, Mark Robinson, is a dangerous nut and has put out plenty of unhinged statements that can be put in the face of swing voters and any Haley stans.

Also, *please* let's not keep trotting out the old "liberal centrists want leftists to shut up and vote for the boring centrists forever how dare they, plus anyone voting for Biden is a boring centrist". Let's all engage in protests and direct action before, during, and after the election and keep adding good young progressives into the future D and independent future candidate pipeline. But let's not help Trump win - for god's sake don't vote for Marianne Williamson or someone like that in the fall. We've got to keep the basic democracy running while we push it left.
posted by caviar2d2 at 6:01 AM on March 6 [9 favorites]


that's why we're calling it uncommitted? Or is it 90+%, "I'm not acting to benefit someone assisting a genocide" and we're going to frame it "uncommitted" forever because that feels less bad?

Hunh? AFAIK it's not about "calling" it uncommitted or feeling bad, it's that "uncommitted" or "none of the above" or something similar is the actual only thing you can actually mark on a ballot besides a candidate's name. (Assuming that's even possible - my own Dem primary ballot in Cuyahoga County Ohio I can only vote for Biden or Phillips, there's no uncommitted or write-in option.)
posted by soundguy99 at 6:14 AM on March 6 [10 favorites]


Yeah, I assume we're calling it uncommitted because that's what it literally said on the ballot (at least here in TN).
posted by joannemerriam at 6:28 AM on March 6 [9 favorites]


> who would prefer the Reagan-style method of advancing the conservative agenda under a veneer of civility

philadelphia, mississippi.

which is to say, there is not and has never been a veneer, and people who prefer reagan-style anything are not people who prefer there be any veneer.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 6:29 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]


Yeah, on the DFL ballot in Minnesota, "Uncommitted" is an oval you can fill in with your pen, right next to the other candidates. The result of voting uncommitted is that when the DFL party divvies up delegates to go to the Democratic convention in the summer, some of those delegates will not be committed to any candidate, and can vote for whoever they want. Last I checked, this year Biden will get 53 delegates and "Uncommitted" will get 8 from Minnesota.

The ultimate source would be party rules. Up until 2016 here, this was all handled through caucuses, where you could elect one of your neighbors to be an "uncommitted" delegate to the local party convention, that convention would elect delegates to the state convention, and the state convention would elect delegates to the national Democratic Party convention. Today, the proportion of delegates bound to presidential candidates is set by the voting results in the primary instead of through the caucus system and conventions.
posted by gimonca at 6:29 AM on March 6 [7 favorites]


Me, yesterday morning:

Haley is playing the best move she's got. Hang tight and wait for the other guy to go bust. She might not have the cash to put up any serious competition but waiting it out is free.

Welp.
posted by Pickman's Next Top Model at 7:29 AM on March 6 [5 favorites]


Welp.

I also thought she'd continue longer as a way of giving Trump the middle finger, but I'm guessing the financial support just wasn't there for that.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:35 AM on March 6 [4 favorites]


I worked the election yesterday in Massachusetts. One of the things I find reassuring about our democracy (at least here) is that some of our workers were clearly of a vastly different political stripe than myself, but we were all committed to the same thing: ensuring that everyone could cast a vote. I'm also reassured because we had a wide range of ages working the election, not just retirees.

But my town also has most of us work a 15 hour shift (wardens and clerks do 16-17, I think), and it is really, really tiring. I would like to see more election workers in my town so that we could maybe do 8 hour shifts instead. We're all absolutely exhausted by the time it comes to sort the ballots, handle the paperwork, etc. My understanding is it's not just us - that's a really common shift for election workers.
posted by rednikki at 7:40 AM on March 6 [9 favorites]


The 2000 election comes to mind. Sans Nader, we might have had two terms of President Al Gore. Although how he would have handled 9/11 is enough to give one pause. But no-o-o, after 8 years of Reagan appointments, the Supreme Court stepped in. And now, after Trump's appointments, it's gonna be rinse and repeat. To quote Marvin Gaye's Inner City Blues:
Makes me want to holler...
posted by y2karl at 8:06 AM on March 6 [4 favorites]


Trump (Truth Social):

"Nikki Haley got TROUNCED last night, in record setting fashion, despite the fact that Democrats, for reasons unknown, are allowed to vote in Vermont, and various other Republican Primaries. Much of her money came from Radical Left Democrats, as did many of her voters, almost 50%, according to the polls. At this point, I hope she stays in the “race” and fights it out until the end! I’d like to thank my family, friends, and the Great Republican Party for helping me to produce, by far, the most successful Super Tuesday in HISTORY, and would further like to invite all of the Haley supporters to join the greatest movement in the history of our Nation. BIDEN IS THE ENEMY, HE IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!"

Haley (remarks yesterday):

"It is now up to Donald Trump to earn the votes of those in our party and beyond it who did not support him, and I hope he does that. At its best, politics is about bringing people into your cause, not turning them away. And our conservative cause badly needs more people. This is now his time for choosing."

Biden (statement):

"It takes a lot of courage to run for President – that’s especially true in today’s Republican Party, where so few dare to speak the truth about Donald Trump. Nikki Haley was willing to speak the truth about Trump: about the chaos that always follows him, about his inability to see right from wrong, about his cowering before Vladimir Putin.

Donald Trump made it clear he doesn’t want Nikki Haley’s supporters. I want to be clear: There is a place for them in my campaign. I know there is a lot we won’t agree on. But on the fundamental issues of preserving American democracy, on standing up for the rule of law, on treating each other with decency and dignity and respect, on preserving NATO and standing up to America’s adversaries, I hope and believe we can find common ground.

We all know this is no ordinary election. And the stakes for America couldn’t be higher. I know that Democrats and Republicans and Independents disagree on many issues and hold strong convictions. That’s a good thing. That’s what America stands for. But I also know this: what unites Democrats and Republicans and Independents is a love for America."
posted by box at 8:13 AM on March 6 [15 favorites]


What comes to my mind is when and what kind of coverage the passing of Jimmy Carter may see. Or, to be honest as both are frail, that of Pope Francis too. That picture of the latter with TFG is worth a thousand words.

To quote Joni Mitchell, Don't it always seem to go/That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone indeed.
posted by y2karl at 8:50 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]


this whole fucking century just boggles the mind
posted by lalochezia at 8:51 AM on March 6 [13 favorites]


I also saw young poll workers sprinkled in with the usual retirees at 2 polling places. Encouraging!

I also try to remember that:

* Biden is surrounded by generally competent people, including a VP who's been training as a backup for 4 years, so if he slips further and has to resign or even just delegate much more to his staff and cabinet, I feel pretty comfortable.
* Biden is running the country and isn't allowed to use his office to campaign, so with no serious primary challenger to worry about I expect his re-election team has been waiting to spring into action once the fall race is clear (that's true as of today).
* Although it won't erase my anger, there is a good chance of some major announcement regarding I/P between now and election day, which should help him, and would represent a major overdue shift in our policy.
* There are a ton of great people running at all levels, some of whom could be president in 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 years and we need to GOTV so that they can keep fighting the good fight.

Of course I'm also incredibly worried :-)
posted by caviar2d2 at 8:54 AM on March 6 [6 favorites]


and isn't allowed to use his office to campaign

Is that true? I always thought it was, but then Trump spent his entire presidency holding rallies and it seemed like previous presidents' restraint was a matter of convention (and respect for democracy) rather than regulation.
posted by trig at 9:12 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]


I didn’t expect Haley to endorse him immediately. Damn if I know why.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 9:18 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]


.......
I always thought it was, but then Trump spent his entire presidency holding rallies and it seemed like previous presidents' restraint was a matter of convention (and respect for democracy) rather than regulation.

Trump filed for his reelection practically on the first day he took office, which is why he could get away with the rallies etc.

.......
I didn’t expect Haley to endorse him immediately. Damn if I know why.

Self-preservation, either politically or personally or both? To hopefully keep/add her name to whomever is on the VP list?
posted by Thorzdad at 9:32 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]


I didn’t expect Haley to endorse him immediately. Damn if I know why.

Did this change? The headline in the NY Times still says she withheld her endorsement.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:33 AM on March 6 [4 favorites]


All the headlines I'm seeing say she didn't endorse Trump, at least not yet.
posted by coffeecat at 9:35 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]


Haley's going to do Never Trumper tv spots and transition into a media career during his second term
posted by fluttering hellfire at 9:36 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]


I think this election cycle has shown us definitively that debates don’t matter.

Like previous elections showed past political experience and past military experience don’t matter.
posted by girlmightlive at 9:37 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]


My best guess:

She knows he's a vindictive, nasty person. She does not like him. She also knows she has very little to gain by endorsing him - he hates people who oppose him and point out his flaws, and he cannot conceive of forgiving disloyalty. So either she debases herself for no real gain, or she stays a little distant and maintains a stronger "not that guy" brand in the event that he does have to drop out, or just... in preparation for 2028. No matter what you think of Trump's chances, there's a good likelihood that he either loses again in 24 or wins and once again is wildly unpopular outside of his fanatical aging base. Unlike him, she's relatively young and has a really good chance of being a strong candidate in the future.

Basically, by avoiding an endorsement, she's maximizing her ability to keep her distance from him and MAGA-ism for future purposes when the party is forced, though his conviction, collapse, or death, to figure out a Future Without Trump. The GOP has a mixed-at-best relationship with him right now; in the very near future they're going to have to wrestle with having a cult of personality that makes Reagan worship look like gentle fondness, but also the guy's actually quite old.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:40 AM on March 6 [6 favorites]


they're going to have to wrestle with having a cult of personality that makes Reagan worship look like gentle fondness, but also the guy's actually quite old.

It really is kind of astonishing to think about the fact that Reagan was 77 at the end of his second term.
posted by rhymedirective at 9:48 AM on March 6 [9 favorites]


Schiff's romp to victory demonstrates, fairly clearly in my view, that this whole idea that Biden will lose because of his support for Israel just has no legs.

This was a real election, not a protest "uncommitted" vote in a functionally uncontested primary.

You can't support Israel more strongly than Schiff, and you don't have a more palatable alternative to that than Porter. And a lot of Porter's and Lee's votes were votes by people who wanted to vote for a woman or an African American, not necessarily a protest vote for Gaza.
posted by MattD at 10:10 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]




What comes to my mind is when and what kind of coverage the passing of Jimmy Carter may see. Or, to be honest as both are frail, that of Pope Francis too. That picture of the latter with TFG is worth a thousand words.

Never forget that the so-called "Liberal media" is harping on "Joe Biden is OLD!!!" because that's all they have. Even the relentless hammering of "butter emails" resulted from the Republicans trying and failing to find anything actually corrupt or incompetent about Hillary Clinton, but they discovered seeming noncompliance with email server management best practices and could pretend -- which the media happily amplified, of course -- that it meant something fishy.

With Biden, the press can't admit they're pissed at him for taking away their beloved, useless, deadly war, and he's otherwise by any objective measure a good, successful president. But he's old, so here we are.
posted by Gelatin at 10:23 AM on March 6 [8 favorites]


It really is kind of astonishing to think about the fact that Reagan was 77 at the end of his second term.

And, it was back in '84 when he did the reversal move on Mondale about age. I'm old enough to remember how he was visibly deteriorating late in his second term, though.

Schiff's romp to victory demonstrates, fairly clearly in my view, that this whole idea that Biden will lose because of his support for Israel just has no legs.

It's a problem for Biden, but (in my amateur opinion) not nearly the scale of problem that some online commentators are claiming. Gaza is an issue that is of tremendous importance for a fairly small number of voters, and a moderate issue for a large number of voters. They care, but not as much as they care about other things. Like, they'll vote "uncommitted" in a primary where there is no doubt in the outcome (and this has been a really effective tactic that is directly producing results), but on the whole they aren't actually planning to vote for Trump or anything like that. It's a tight election and he needs to pull back in as many of the people who are currently really upset about his policies around Israel/Gaza as he can, and I am sure we'll see continued movement on this front, though not nearly as much as some people want.

There's also a large swath of voters who care about the Israel/Gaza violence, but in terms of wanting assurances that support for Israel will continue, and Biden is going to be trying to maintain their support, as well.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:24 AM on March 6 [6 favorites]


didn’t expect Haley to endorse him immediately. Damn if I know why.
Did this change? The headline in the NY Times still says she withheld her endorsement.
This might be part of the confusion: "Trump falsely claims Haley endorsed his candidacy" (The Guardian)
posted by mazola at 10:27 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]


and isn't allowed to use his office to campaign

Is that true? I always thought it was, but then Trump spent his entire presidency holding rallies and it seemed like previous presidents' restraint was a matter of convention (and respect for democracy) rather than regulation.


I think you're right. The Hatch Act seems to exclude the President and Vice President and their immediate staff . But the money has to stay separate and there are a bunch of norms (ha ha, says Trump). So for example Obama's campaign HQ was in Chicago both times, and I don't think the staff really overlap - they operate independently and pass messages back and forth as needed. Someone who knows more can chime in.
posted by caviar2d2 at 10:38 AM on March 6


Haley's going to do Never Trumper tv spots and transition into a media career during his second term

Welcome to #theResistance!

You know, there's a lot of talk about how politicians and regulators should be banned from going into the finance industry and lobbying afterwards, but maybe we should also talk about keeping them from using public service as one long promo ad for their future punditry gig.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:43 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]




Agreed mazola.

Can't think of many republicans that I have much respect for, but, strangely, she is one.

It's like if Mitt Romney had had a spine or something...
posted by Windopaene at 10:50 AM on March 6 [4 favorites]


Never forget that the so-called "Liberal media" is harping on "Joe Biden is OLD!!!" because that's all they have.
...
With Biden, the press can't admit they're pissed at him for taking away their beloved, useless, deadly war, and he's otherwise by any objective measure a good, successful president. But he's old, so here we are.


Huh? Most Americans think Biden is too old and are worried about his age - the media isn't making a value judgement here, they are reporting on what voters think about one of the main candidates, which is a news story. There's no conspiracy here. And by "useless, deadly war" do you mean Afghanistan? Because there was barely any reporting on that in the final years, so I don't get your point.
posted by coffeecat at 10:57 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]


And a lot of Porter's and Lee's votes were votes by people who wanted to vote for a woman or an African American, not necessarily a protest vote for Gaza.

And a lot of Schiff and Garvey votes were votes by people who wanted to vote for a white man, not a woman or an African American.
posted by hydropsyche at 10:59 AM on March 6 [7 favorites]


Gaza is an issue that is of tremendous importance for a fairly small number of voters, and a moderate issue for a large number of voters.

This is true for a lot of policies outside the big ones, but why this may matter more than other policy issues is because of Michigan.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:13 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]


(For example, recognizing Israel in 1948 was of tremendous importance for a fairly small number of voters in the US, but those voters were concentrated in important electoral areas that Truman needed to win, which is partly why Truman paid attention to them.)
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:14 AM on March 6 [3 favorites]


Schiff's romp to victory demonstrates, fairly clearly in my view, that this whole idea that Biden will lose because of his support for Israel just has no legs.

Because of the Electoral College, very small margins in different states can change the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. That's why I think it's still possible for Biden to win a popular vote victory but lose the Electoral College based on the Israel/Gaza issue. However, I think that Schiff's win is probably a strong data point for the assumption that the pro-ceasefire coalition within the Democratic Party doesn't have the numbers to win an intraparty fight on the issue, at least not yet.
posted by jonp72 at 11:28 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]


God help me, but I kind of like that Schiff has a little Machiavelli in him. Mind you, I don't want a politician with a lot, but enough that he or she doesn't have some starry-eyed belief that good will win out because of its righteousness.
I would have had no problem if Porter (my favorite) or Lee used the Garvey ploy.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:31 AM on March 6 [4 favorites]


Schiff's romp to victory demonstrates, fairly clearly in my view, that this whole idea that Biden will lose because of his support for Israel just has no legs.

This is just my opinion, but I think it's kind of dickish to declare that a [checks notes] protest against genocide is ultimately toothless because those protesting don't care enough to not vote strategically on election day. Ditto referring to it as an "intraparty fight".

I know it's a complicated issue, but it is literally genocide, and dismissing it as though it were some perennial progressive wish-list item like universal healthcare or student loan forgiveness is not going to make some people's eventual decisions in the general election any easier.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:37 AM on March 6 [7 favorites]


Huh? Most Americans think Biden is too old and are worried about his age - the media isn't making a value judgement here, they are reporting on what voters think about one of the main candidates, which is a news story. There's no conspiracy here.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy (except maybe at Fox News and the other outlets even further to the right), but the media is definitely participating in the story through things like always having Trump's adjectives be about how he is "dominating", "driving," etc. and using quite different descriptions of Biden.

(For example, recognizing Israel in 1948 was of tremendous importance for a fairly small number of voters in the US, but those voters were concentrated in important electoral areas that Truman needed to win, which is partly why Truman paid attention to them.)

I agree, and this is why the protest votes have turned out to be so effective (much more so than I had initially thought they would be). They are being heard loud and clear and already driving some small changes (like airdrops and Harris's speech). It's not nearly enough pressure to force a massive reversal of US policies like what activists wish for, but it is enough to cause recalibration already and probably over the coming weeks, much more serious recalibration.

Or to say it differently, it's enough pressure to cause some level of policy change, but not looking like a massive threat to his reelection campaign.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:46 AM on March 6 [4 favorites]


"There will be some small policy changes around the ongoing genocide" is just fucking incredible to see in writing.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:20 PM on March 6 [10 favorites]


Huh? Most Americans think Biden is too old and are worried about his age - the media isn't making a value judgement here, they are reporting on what voters think about one of the main candidates, which is a news story.

You're confusing cause and effect. The media was making an issue about Biden's age long before voters cared about it -- partially because of their habit of adopting Republican framing -- so voters are responding to what they see in the media. Most voters never really cared about compliance with email server management best practices either, but when it was all the New York Times would talk about, Hillary Clinton's public perception was damaged enough to lose a couple states by narrow margins and thus the Electoral College. The media -- led by the Times again -- is pulling the same trick now.

And by "useless, deadly war" do you mean Afghanistan? Because there was barely any reporting on that in the final years, so I don't get your point.

Except for the torrent of negative reporting about the withdrawal, framed so that the collapse of the Afghan government was framed as "incompetence on the part of the Biden Administration" and not "clear and convincing evidence that the US was wasting lives and treasure in pursuit of a futile goal, and lying to the American people about its progress to boot."
posted by Gelatin at 12:31 PM on March 6 [13 favorites]


You're confusing cause and effect. The media was making an issue about Biden's age long before voters cared about it -- partially because of their habit of adopting Republican framing -- so voters are responding to what they see in the media.

Also, the above means my point stands -- Biden's age is the only criticism the Republicans and the media can find that will stick in the public consciousness, Gaza notwithstanding. Consider the laughingstock the Republicans made of their own impeachment inquiry. for example, to the point that House Republicans might not be able to give Trump the Biden impeachment he craves.
posted by Gelatin at 12:44 PM on March 6


"There will be some small policy changes around the ongoing genocide"

Chalk up another win for incrementalism! Or at least a tenth of one.
posted by Pickman's Next Top Model at 1:25 PM on March 6 [6 favorites]


"There will be some small policy changes around the ongoing genocide" is just fucking incredible to see in writing.

That's my personal best guess about what will happen, not any kind of guaranteed prediction and certainly not my dream scenario. I'd be delighted to be wrong and see faster progress, but I don't see any of the more aspirational goals (like a full revision of the US/Israel security framework, say) as being at all likely.

What I think is most likely is that Hamas and Israel will both finally get their arms twisted enough by their outside backers, plus their own internal pressures, and there will be some kind of ceasefire or truce that will make this mostly go away as an issue for most voters. (Not go away as an issue or a human rights debacle, but just enough to diminish it as an issue in terms of voting in the US.)
posted by Dip Flash at 1:33 PM on March 6


You're confusing cause and effect. The media was making an issue about Biden's age long before voters cared about it

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here - I've been listening to Astead Herndon's podcast The Run Up since before Biden was elected, and voters have been making it known they are worried about Biden's age long before it became a media narrative (something that Astead recently affirmed in his own reporting). Voters are worried about his age because he appears to have aged greatly, especially when he has to think on his feet in Q&A sessions. If you want to make the case the press should focus less and more on the 2025 plan, I'm in full agreement, but I also think it's concerning how dismissive people are that Biden's age is a problem - his campaign needs to take this more seriously.

Except for the torrent of negative reporting about the withdrawal, framed so that the collapse of the Afghan government was framed as "incompetence on the part of the Biden Administration"

I mean, they absolutely bungled it, as they admit - yeah, the whole war was indeed a mess (no disagreement there), but they assumed the Taliban would not come to power right away and planned accordingly, which yeah, huge consequential mistake on their part.
posted by coffeecat at 2:13 PM on March 6 [4 favorites]


I've never heard of Astead Herndon, but it appears he works for the NY Times, which is probably the leading champion of the "Biden is too old" line. I don't see how him making that argument on his podcast contradicts the argument that the media has been the one pushing the Biden's age.
posted by hydropsyche at 2:58 PM on March 6 [3 favorites]


Herndon himself has not argued that Biden is too old. He's been talking to voters about their views as part of his reporting for many years (that's his beat), and he recently observed that voters were telling him, un-prompted, that they were concerned about Biden's age way before it become a media narrative. I've also observed this, both in personal conversations with people and from listening to what people say when reporters ask them open-ended questions like "What do you think about Biden?" Hope that makes what I'm saying clearer.
posted by coffeecat at 3:12 PM on March 6 [2 favorites]


So he plays comments on his podcast of voters who agree with the NY Times "Biden is too old" line? Okay.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:17 PM on March 6


“Real” or “manufactured”, the age thing is something Biden’s going to be facing this go-around and I hope his people have a Dark Brandon-caliber maneuver up their sleeve to deal with it.
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:49 PM on March 6 [4 favorites]


hydropsyche, that's a very skewed and inaccurate way to describe it, and I'm not sure why you're being so stubborn about something you've not even consumed! I will try to clarify one more time: He has been asking voters very open-ended questions for years, and he plays all sorts of responses and notes which responses are most frequent - and yes, those responses have included concerns over Biden's age, particularly once it was clear he was going to run again. This was before any media narrative existed. This matches what I've experienced in conversations with friends in family, again, long before there was any "media narrative."

People don't think Biden is too old because of the liberal media. The various rightwing memes/compilation of gaffe videos that circulate on social media are far more to blame. Don't forget, most Americans do not read the news period, even less read the NYTimes.
posted by coffeecat at 3:57 PM on March 6 [6 favorites]


That is finally enough context for me to even understand what this is. I'm sorry, but all I could get from a quick DuckDuckGo was that he was a NY Times podcaster. Hence my confusion.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:09 PM on March 6 [2 favorites]


It really is kind of astonishing to think about the fact that Reagan was 77 at the end of his second term.

And visibly showing signs of the Alzheimer's disease that claimed his life:

Tracking Discourse Complexity Preceding Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis: A Case Study Comparing the Press Conferences of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush:
Here we describe a method to extract key features from discourse transcripts, which we evaluated on non-scripted news conferences from President Ronald Reagan, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, and President George Herbert Walker Bush, who has no known diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Key word counts previously associated with cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease were extracted and regression analyses were conducted. President Reagan showed a significant reduction in the number of unique words over time and a significant increase in conversational fillers and non-specific nouns over time. There was no significant trend in these features for President Bush.
I rather suspect the same will be seen as true for one of the candidates this year. And we all know who That Fucking Guy is...
posted by y2karl at 4:44 PM on March 6 [2 favorites]


"It is now up to Donald Trump to earn the votes of those in our party and beyond it who did not support him, and I hope he does that…”

She hopes he earns the votes of those in her party, and beyond it, who did not support him. She hopes he earns their votes. She hopes he wins the election. That’s an endorsement. I don’t need to hear her hereby declare her endorsement for it to be an endorsement.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 5:19 PM on March 6 [8 favorites]




As I was asleep:

Politico: 7 things Super Tuesday just taught us about the November election [editorial note: it's been pointed out to me that US Politico is fairly reliable due to their anti-Trump dislike but to be careful with Europe/German Politico due to their publisher's rightwing bias. Kinda like US vs UK Guardian when it comes to trans issues]

If Not Now twitter:
on Adam Schiff (with MSNBC video): BREAKING: Jews for Ceasefire, including @IfNotNowLA & @JVP_LA, and allies just completely shut down Adam Schiff's Super Tuesday speech. He gave up on his prepared remarks and left the stage.

As Jews, we cannot be silent as the people of Gaza are slaughtered. Let Gaza Live!


On ADL: Today the ADL sunk to a new low, giving their annual award to Jared Kushner. He took to the stage to downplay the rising threat of online white nationalism, defend his old boss Donald Trump, and encourage Jews to ally with conservative evangelicals "regardless of their politics."

Jewish Insider:
Freed Hamas hostage to attend State of the Union as guest of House Speaker Johnson - Mia Schem, one of the hostages freed from Gaza during a hostage deal last year, will be a guest at President Joe Biden’s speech on Thursday

posted by cendawanita at 6:34 PM on March 6 [10 favorites]


Sen. Tim Kaine’s State of the Union guest: America’s first IVF baby [Elizabeth Jordan Carr, now 42] (WaPo gift link)
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:34 PM on March 6 [2 favorites]


ADL celebrating Kushner? I guess Kissinger is dead and they are going alphabetically.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:11 AM on March 7 [8 favorites]


lol, at least the world's first test-tube baby is a better stunt-invite than Mrs. Navalnaya.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:17 AM on March 7


Not the world's first -- Carr was the first "test-tube" baby in the USA. Louise Joy Brown was born in Manchester, England about 3 and a half years earlier.

Jill Biden's guest list includes Kate Cox (sued the state of Texas last year for the right to terminate her pregnancy), Kayla Smith (moved out of Idaho in order to terminate her pregnancy), and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson (Sweden is set to become NATO's 32nd member). Speaker Johnson, Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries and other members of Congress have invited "17 relatives of Americans killed or taken hostage by Hamas during the 7 October attack that triggered the Israel-Gaza war." BBC's coverage of guest list.

Speaker Johnson invited over a dozen guests, including the two New York police officers (Zunxu Tian and Ben Kurian) who "fought a group of men outside a migrant shelter in Times Square in January" (legal filing); there have been developments in that story.

State of the Union guest lists show political nature of invitations (ABC News)
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:18 AM on March 7 [1 favorite]


You know, if the beginning and end of your electoral appeal is "vote for us or the fascists get in!" your support is probably fairly brittle and it might be a good idea to not do overtly fascistic things.
Unless being in power is boring and insufficiently profitable, of course.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:11 PM on March 7 [7 favorites]


When Biden focuses on kitchen table issues he gets yelled at for not pointing out the dangers of fascism. If he starts talking about fascism, he gets yelled at for not focusing on kitchen table issues.

It's almost as if he will get yelled at no matter what!
posted by Justinian at 1:35 PM on March 7 [11 favorites]


You know, if the beginning and end of your electoral appeal is "vote for us or the fascists get in!" your support is probably fairly brittle and it might be a good idea to not do overtly fascistic things.

I would have thought him being the last line of defense for democracy is America would make voting for Biden a no-brainer, but I guess everybody does solidarity against fascism in their own way.
posted by The Tensor at 2:16 PM on March 7 [12 favorites]


If he starts talking about fascism, he gets yelled at for not focusing on kitchen table issues.

Serious question--what are you referring to when you stay that he "started talking about fascism? I'm not following this comment or how it is related to the ones that came before.
posted by lizard2590 at 3:57 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]


The comment literally one above mine? "If the beginning and end of your appeal is "vote for us or the fascists get in!"...
posted by Justinian at 7:44 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]


As far as I can tell this is a Hawaiian, from whom I first learned that Hawaii scored 29% uncommitted (making it now the highest), who tweeted: Hawai’i secured enough votes for “Uncommitted” to earn 7 Delegates at the Democratic Convention and nobody who usually knows the answer to this stuff can tell me what happens next. I have a friend who’s a Delegate and I’m trying to find out if they can cast a vote for Abu Obaida.

Sarcasm aside, what's the play and leverage here if you have that many delegates from your primary? I do realise Hawaii is a small state but I'm not sure what it means in the delegation count.
posted by cendawanita at 8:33 PM on March 7 [3 favorites]




I do realise Hawaii is a small state but I'm not sure what it means in the delegation count.

Per Ballotpedia there are an estimated 4,672 delegates, Biden can win in the first round of votes with 1,968, he's currently at 1,542 pledged.

So in terms of actual delegate leverage Uncommitted probably doesn't have any weight, it's a messaging thing where a relatively large number of Uncommitted delegates is supposed to make the Biden administration change course because Uncommitted delegates represent a potentially sizeable number of voters.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:11 AM on March 8 [2 favorites]


So in terms of actual delegate leverage Uncommitted probably doesn't have any weight, it's a messaging thing where a relatively large number of Uncommitted delegates is supposed to make the Biden administration change course because Uncommitted delegates represent a potentially sizeable number of voters.

And that should in fact worry them but it doesn't seem to! Every single bit of messaging i've seen from campaign surrogates and also the vast numbers of BlueMAGA on every social media platform is "those uncommitted voters will all 'come home' in November because what else are they going to do?"

Well, Joe & Karen, they might stay home, and then you have a problem.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:19 AM on March 8 [3 favorites]


Hi! The book is a pile of shit!

"In several instances, the authors misinterpret what the academic research they cite says. For example, they use a report by the Chicago Project on Security and Threats to argue that "rural Americans are overrepresented among those with insurrectionist tendencies." But the actual report concludes exactly the opposite: "The more rural the county, the lower the county rate of sending insurrectionists" to the January 6 Capitol riot. Moreover, when a peer-reviewed article in the journal Political Behavior compared rural and non-rural beliefs on whether politically motivated violence is a valid means for pursuing political change, it revealed that rural Americans are actually less supportive of political violence."



New Book on Rural America Started with a False Conclusion, Then Looked for Evidence


Only two surveys in the entire book conform to basic standards of survey research and even attempt to try and present an accurate picture of rural America: a 2017 study from The Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation (1,070 rural residents) and a 2018 report from the Pew Research Center (2,085 rural residents) — a study, by the way, that shows that majorities of rural Americans believe that “white people benefit from advantages in society that black people do not have,” that “there are still significant obstacles that make it harder for women to get ahead than men,” that there are, indeed, “situations in which abortion should be allowed,” and who reject the idea that a non-white, majority country would be “bad” for America. Oh, the rage!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:29 AM on March 8 [6 favorites]


[ ^^^ wrong thread I think (but helpful comment!) ]
posted by mazola at 10:40 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]


Ooops sorry
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:07 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]


Took a while to finish counting, but our local recall was successful, so I'm thrilled! https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-15/orange-unified-school-board-members-who-embraced-culture-wars-are-ousted
posted by Arbac at 9:08 PM on March 17 [6 favorites]


Some thoughts from Boulder's Mayor Pro Tem on the Democratic primary process:
With time requirements like this to have your voice heard, it’s no surprise that of the roughly 500 possible delegates in Boulder County, only around 380 were selected. Many precincts will have no delegates to have a say in who is on our June 25 ballot.

To add insult to injury, in the lead-up to what should be a routine step for Boulder County Democrats to affirm that voters having a choice on their ballots is a good thing, some Democrats appear to be spreading misinformation and using fear tactics to try to keep these three Black and Latina women off the June 25 primary ballot.
posted by audi alteram partem at 9:12 AM on March 28 [1 favorite]


« Older Here at the edge of things.   |   “Yeah,” Jobs replied. “Tell Adam he’s an arsehole... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments